Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Tonga (Vava'u Airfield)

Mr. Godman Irvine: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what contribution he is proposing to make to the Government of Tonga in respect of the cost of the second airfield at Vava'u in Tonga ; and on what factors he is basing his decision.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Overseas Development (Mr. Albert E. Oram): At the request of the Tonga Government I arranged for two experts to report on aviation development and to survey an alternative site on Vava'u. This report is expected very shortly. Meanwhile, the British Government have not been asked for a contribution.

Mr. Godman Irvine: Is the Minister aware that it is widely thought in the

Pacific area that the reason a second airfield is required is that the original advice proved to be faulty? In these circumstances, will he be quite certain that no steps will be taken except on good advice?

Mr. Oram: The hon. Gentleman had a Question down at the end of last year about the earlier site. I assure him that the two inquiries which have taken place will ensure that no action is taken that is not likely to be quite successful.

Overseas Civil Service (Education Allowances)

Mr. Godman Irvine: asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether, in view of recent increases in school fees, he will again increase allowances to members of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service serving abroad whose children are at schools in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Oram: A review of these allowances has already been put in hand and I will inform the hon. Member of the result in due course.

Mr. Godman Irvine: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the last review took place in September and that it took into consideration factors which were about six months behind the times? We are now in the middle of the next year. Is it not about time that action was taken?

Mr. Oram: As I have said, the matter is being reviewed. Allowances for


people serving under the Overseas Aid Scheme are closely related to the allowances for those home civil servants who are seconded for duty overseas. This question is largely the responsibility of the Civil Service Department, but I will inform the hon. Member as soon as a result is achieved.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will the Parliamentary Secretary bear in mind that the increase in school fees referred to—there are 30 such schools; for example, Malvern, in my constituency—takes effect from October this year on account of the advanced selective employment tax and other increased charges? Could not these overseas civil servants receive their increased allowances from October this year?

Mr. Oram: I assure the hon. Gentleman that all the factors that he has put forward concerning increased fees and dates will be taken into account in the review.

Scottish Organisations (Representations)

Mr. Eadie: asked the Minister of Overseas Development how many representations from organised bodies in Scotland have been received this year about expenditure on overseas development.

The Minister of Overseas Development (Mr. Reg Prentice): I have received 25 letters this year from organisations in Scotland asking for an increase in the overseas aid programme. A very large number of similar letters has been received by other Ministers, especially my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Eadie: In thanking my right hon. Friend for that Answer, may I ask whether he is not aware—as, no doubt, he must be—contrary to views expressed in some quarters in the country, that there is enthusiasm for more overseas aid to be given and that, as he has stated to the House, young people and church leaders are writing to ask us to try to influence the giving of more aid?

Mr. Prentice: Yes, there is a good deal of evidence that in the last year or so there has been a considerable increase in the number of people actively concerned in this matter, especially

young people, who want us to make a larger contribution towards fighting poverty throughout the world.

European Volunteer Programme

Sir G. de Freitas: asked the Minister of Overseas Development if he will consult member and applicant States of the European Economic Community on the development of a multi-national European programme of technical assistance by young people in the developing countries.

Mr. Oram: I would refer my right hon. Friend to the Reply given to a similar Question from the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) on the 19th June.—[Vol. 785 c. 147.]

Sir. G. de Freitas: Since this country has so much more experience in this field—through V.S.O., for example—than any other country, will not my hon. Friend do what he can to offer that experience to our neighbouring countries in Western Europe?

Mr. Oram: I certainly have a good deal of sympathy with the idea of international programmes of service for young people, but my right hon. Friend will, I am sure, be aware that there is no scheme in Europe similar to that indicated in his Question. As to the future, my right hon. Friend should know that the United Nations is initiating a discussion about the feasibility of a United Nations volunteer programme. This will shortly be discussed at E.C.O.S.O.C. and I would prefer to know the outcome of that discussion before embarking on my right hon. Friend's European idea.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Does the Minister have plans to encourage employers and trade unons at home to co-operate in the national scheme?

Mr. Oram: Indeed. We are constantly in touch with both trade unions and employers. During last year I had meetings representative of both sides at the Ministry and had a good deal of helpful discussion with them.

Mauritius (Tourist Industry)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what plans he has for development projects to assist the tourist industry in Mauritius.

Mr. Prentice: I have had no requests from the Government of Mauritius to assist projects concerned with the development of tourism.

Mr. Dalyell: What alternative propositions will the Minister be able to put to Prime Minister Ramgoolam when he comes this month?

Mr. Prentice: My hon. Friend will appreciate that it is for the Government of the country concerned to put propositions to us within the context of their development plans. A good deal of the work which we do is helping with infrastructure that may attract tourism. For example, the survey which we have just undertaken of the road network in Mauritius will be helpful in this respect.

Estimates Committee (Recommendation)

Mr. Biffen: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what steps he is taking to implement the Estimates Committee's recommendation that overseas official aid should be increasingly concentrated on those countries which offer the greatest potential markets.

Mr. Prentice: I accepted the recommenclation of the Estimates Committee and intend to take account of it in future aid programmes. At present opportunities are limited by the constraints of a programme fixed at a constant level.

Mr. Biffen: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that free enterprise and free movement of capital are by far the best and most suitable mechanism in identifying market opportunities, and would not the most constructive conclusion to be drawn from the Estimates Committee's Report be that the activities of his Department should diminish and those of free enterprise increase?

Mr. Prentice: No. In fact, the Estimates Committee came to exactly the opposite conclusion, and what is needed in developing countries is both Government aid to provide the sort of things which private enterprise will not provide—roads and schools and that sort of development—plus private investment to help the formation of productive capacity. What those countries need is both, not one or the other.

Aid Programme and Expenditure

Mr. Judd: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what adjustment he proposes to make in the figure of £235 million, reported in Command Paper No. 3936 as planned overseas aid expenditure in 1970–71 at 1969–70 estimated prices, to take account of increases in the prices of aid-financed goods.

Mr. Prentice: None, Sir. The figure of £235 million is in cash terms.

Mr. Judd: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that if only £235 million is allowed in the Estimates for 1970–71 this will be less in real terms than that provided for in the White Paper?

Mr. Prentice: Yes, this is true, and I am glad my hon. Friend has called attention to this matter for the sake of clarifying it. There is in fact a reduction of something like £5 million or £6 million a year in real terms on recent experience. The real value of the programme is bound to go down as long as it is couched in the same level in cash terms.

Mr. Hooley: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what estimate his Department has now made of the net cost across the exchanges of the British aid programme during the current financial year.

Mr. Prentice: A recent study of the economic planning staff of my Department confirms previous estimates that the foreign exchange costs are about one-third of the whole. This estimate takes no account of the repayment of past aid loans, which benefit the balance of payments; nor of the export orders which result from other countries' aid programmes.

Mr. Hooley: In the light of that reply, which I very much welcome, will my right hon. Friend make the most powerful representations to the Treasury that it cannot argue that exchange considerations should in any way hold back expansion of our aid programme?

Mr. Prentice: I cannot reveal to the House what I might or might not say to the Treasury, but I think my commitment to the concept of an expanding aid programme is well known.

Mr. Bidwell: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what is the value


of official aid at constant prices for each of the financial years 1966–67 to date.

Mr. Prentice: Taking as the base year 1966–67, when official aid was £216 million, the £215 million of aid provided in 1967–68 was worth £210 million and a provisional figure of £212 million provided in 1968–69 was worth £201 million.

Mr. Bidwell: Noting the trend of these figures, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend would agree that overseas aid amply repays this country, even if one looks at it simply in a Scrooge-like way, and certainly repays those who think they have some moral responsibility to assist less fortunate peoples in the world?

Mr. Prentice: Yes. Taking that second point about our self-interest, I think that if one looks at the effect on our balance of payments, long-term or short-term, it is clear that our balance of payments would be worse if we had had no aid programmes in the last ten years.

International Development Association (Replenishments)

Mr. Hooley: asked the Minister of Overseas Development when it is proposed to initiate discussions on the next Replenishment of the International Development Association.

Mr. Prentice: I appreciate my hon. Friend's desire to make progress in this matter. But the Second Replenishment of I.D.A. resources is not yet operative, and until it is it would be premature to undertake discussions on a Third Replenishment.

Mr. Hooley: But would my right hon. Friend not agree that what he has just said constitutes the strongest reason for beginning discussions at an earlier date? Is he not aware of the fact that a very long period indeed elapsed before getting the Second Replenishment going? Does he not think that that strengthens the case, therefore, for making an early start with the discussions on the third?

Mr. Prentice: I agree that it has taken a long time to get the Second Replenishment going but my hon. Friend will be aware of the reasons for that. The United States Congress has now passed the I.D.A. Bill and, therefore, I would expect that the United States will soon

be in a position to notify the World Bank of their acceptance so that the Second Replenishment can take effect. I would think it would not be very long before discussions started on the Third Replenishment.

Mr. Braine: I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman could add to that and tell the House whether there are any other members who have not yet ratified their own contributions to the Replenishment? Or does what he has just said about the American action mean that the last obstacle to enabling the Association to put its plans into effect is now removed?

Mr. Prentice: There has been a small number of other countries which have not ratified. I think that in most cases they were waiting to see whether the United States would do so. However, I think the main point here is that once the United States have done so the necessary ratio of resources has been committed and the Second Replenishment can go ahead.

Development Work (Reporting)

Mr. Judd: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what further plans he has for systematic reporting on the work of his Department.

Mr. Prentice: In the next few weeks I shall publish the Memorandum on the British aid programme submitted to the Development Assistance Committee of O.E.C.D. as part of its annual aid review. This will be an extensive review of development work in 1968. Our annual Statistical Bulletin will be further improved this year, taking into account some of the suggestions of the Estimates Committee.

Mr. Judd: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he can give any indication to the House what action the Government will take to create a feeling of dynamic participation in the Second Development Decade amongst the British population, particularly the younger people of the British population?

Mr. Prentice: Well, the Government work in many ways, particularly my Department, to create a greater understanding of the development needs, and understanding of what Britain can do to help respond to them. Certainly, as the


plans for the Second Decade unfold during this autumn and this winter, information has to be related particularly to the concepts of the Decade.

New Educational Methods and Techniques

Miss Lestor: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what assistance he is giving to make new educational methods and techniques available to the developing countries.

Mr. Prentice: I regard this as a very important and growing part of our aid to education in the developing countries. I am planning to set up a new Centre under the Chairmanship of Sir Lionel Russell, C.B.E., which will be primarily responsible for advising and helping developing countries on all matters concerning curriculum reform and new teaching techniques. It will incorporate a number of existing bodies and will cooperate closely with the B.B.C., the British Council and other interested organisations.

Miss Lestor: Whilst thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, and expressing pleasure at this announcement, may I ask whether, for example, there will be any concentration of development on new methods in primary education, and what amount of money it is expected these projects will cost?

Mr. Prentice: I anticipate that a great deal of work will be in the primary field, though I could not separate it without notice, or even with notice, because a lot of the work will overlap.

Mr. Braine: Yes, but the House will be wanting to know what the cost is likely to be. May I take the opportunity to welcome the announcement which the right hon. Gentleman has just made? I can think of few ways in which a more useful contribution could be made to overseas development than this.

Mr. Prentice: I can give the figures. I did not respond to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) because I thought it related to primary education. At the moment the cost is about £150,000, and it is expected to go up to £256,000 and to rise to some extent in subsequent years.

British Honduras (New Capital)

Mr. Bidwell: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what assistance he is giving to British Honduras to build a new captial.

Mr. Prentice: I have just sent a message to the Premier to say that we will provide a further £807,000. This brings our total contribution to the new capital to £4,932,000. I am also ready to consider possible help towards the move to the new capital, which is expected to take place next year.

Mr. Bidwell: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, which recalls the decision to assist in the building of the new capital arose out of the dreadful hurricane and loss of lives, and also the commitment of the previous Government to assist, may I ask him whether he will assure the House that every possible speed will be put into removing to the new capital when it is provided?

Mr. Prentice: Yes. In particular, we are in consultation with the Governor about the possible help and advice which British Honoduras may need on social and other aspects of the move when it takes place next year.

Mr. James Johnson: Will the Minister confirm, or otherwise, that the Prime Minister, Mr. Price, will be coming to discuss this and other projects in the colony?

Mr. Prentice: Not without notice.

Tanzania

Mr. Whitaker: asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether he will now resume development aid and assistance to Tanzania.

Mr. Prentice: No, Sir. The situation has not changed since the debate in the House on 26th July last year, when I explained why we had found it necessary to discontinue aid to Tanzania.

Mr. Whitaker: When will the Government reconsider this lamentably shortsighted attitude? Tanzania needs overseas technical assistance. Will it be left exclusively to the Chinese and the Russians to supply it?

Mr. Prentice: I think that my hon. Friend is aware of the great regret I felt about the need to discontinue aid to Tanzania, but he is also aware of the reasons for it. Because of those reasons, I see no early prospect of resuming aid.

Biafra

Mr. Henig: asked the Minister of Overseas Development how much official aid has been sent to areas under Biafran control since June, 1967, to the latest convenient date.

Mr. Prentice: None, directly. Colonel Ojukwu refuses to accept aid from Her Majesty's Government. Since June, 1967, the Government have, however, contributed £950,000 to the International Red Cross, which is providing relief on both sides of the fighting line.

Mr. Henig: Will my right hon. Friend agree that need knows no frontiers and no Governments, and that the figure of £950,000 is pitiful in view of the great tragedy which is being enacted in that country? Will he make fresh overtures to try to establish links between this country and the Biafran Government so that further assistance can be rendered?

Mr. Prentice: In reply to the first part of the question on the quantity of aid, we have played a substantial part in the effort of financing the International Red Cross. On the question of new contacts, I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will be answering a Private Notice Question at 3.30 this afternoon, and I do not want to anticipate what he might say.

Nigeria

Mr. Henig: asked the Minister of Overseas Development how much official aid has been sent to Nigeria since June, 1967, to the latest convenient date.

Mr. Prentice: The total amount of official development aid given to the Federal Military Government of Nigeria between June, 1967, and March, 1969, was about £8·6 million. In addition, in the same period some £970,000 was given by Her Majesty's Government to relief purposes in the war stricken areas.

Mr. Henig: While welcoming my right hon. Friend's reply, may I ask whether

exact accounting methods are used to make certain that the money is spent on the projects for which it is intended, since there have been rumours that some money intended for aid has been diverted to military use? Can my right hon. Friend deny this?

Mr. Prentice: I can deny it emphatically. We have efficient methods of making sure in Nigeria, and in any other part of the world, that aid provided by the British taxpayer is used for the purpose for which it is intended.

Mr. Tilney: Will the Minister bear in mind the immense need for medical help for those wounded in the war?

Mr. Prentice: Yes, Sir, that is why the Government have made this contribution to the Red Cross, to which many private citizens in this country have also contributed.

World Food Programme (Storage of Foodstuffs)

Mr. Barnes: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what attention is being given by his department to problems of loss during storage of foodstuffs donated under the World Food Programme arrangements.

Mr. Oram: The Tropical Products Centre, which is a department of the Tropical Products Institute, is the consultant to the Programme on the storage, transportation and handling of food. The Centre is training all the World Food Programme Project officers in ways of preventing the deterioriation of stored food ; it has completed a handbook on the subject for the World Food Programme and provides specialists to advise recipient and donor countries on their problems in this field.

Mr. Barnes: Since it is such a tragedy that food which is so badly needed should be lost in this way, will my hon. Friend say what time will elapse before these losses can be prevented, and how many officers have so far been trained for this work?

Mr. Oram: This is a continuing problem, and it is not easy to put a time scale to it. In reply to the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, in each of the years 1967 and 1968 there were


three courses, at which 24 officers were trained. In 1969, four courses will be given and 32 officers will receive the benefit of training.

Mr. Braine: While I agree that it is difficult to put a time scale on this, is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations recently estimated that because of pests, disease and weeds the world loses up to 48,000 million dollars worth of food every year? Does not he agree that research and technical assistance in this field can do more than anything else to ease the world food problem?

Mr. Oram: I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman in attaching importance to this problem. As I have said, we are doing an important job and increasing our expert knowledge on this subject.

Non-Wheat Flours

Mr. John Fraser: asked the Minister of Overseas Development in view of the increasing demand for bread in the developing countries, what his Department is doing to find ways of using non-wheat flours in bread making.

Mr. Oram: The Tropical Products Institute, which is part of my Department, has set up a test bakery to develop ways of making bread from a mixture of wheat flour and starches derived from cassava, maize or millet, fortified with protein supplement.

Mr. Fraser: Will the results of this research be made available to developing countries, and is this country producing machinery for the production of flour from non-wheat substances?

Mr. Oram: All information derived from these researches is readily available to the Governments of developing countries. I am glad to say that the machinery which is recommended is of British manufacture.

Mrs. Knight: Will the Minister make sure, before flour of any kind is despatched from this country, that there will be no delays at the Customs, as recently happened when 12,000 tons of Australian flour was held up in Nigeria until it went rotten?

Mr. Oram: This is a rather different question from the one on the Order Paper. I am aware of the problem and will have it in mind if it arises in connection with our efforts.

Agricultural Produce (Marketing)

Mr. John Fraser: asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether his Department will assist overseas governments in finding markets for their agricupltural produce in Great Britain and Europe.

Mr. Oram: Yes, Sir. Advice on the marketing of cash crops is given by the Tropical Products Institute. Marketing problems will feature, for instance, at a Conference on Tropical and Sub-Tropical Fruits to be held by the Institute next September, at which the delegates will include fruit producers from developing countries and importers from Europe and Britain.

Mr. Fraser: Will administrative machinery be available for providing this advice to cash crop producers in the countries concerned?

Mr. Oram: As I said in answer to an earlier question, the Tropical Products Institute is very much concerned with getting the result of its researches to the Governments. Indeed, this is its main purpose in life, so my hon. Friend can be assured on this point.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Does not the Minister think that Question No. 25 is slightly contradictory to Question No. 24? Would not it be better for the countries themselves to use their food surpluses rather than that they should be encouraged to send them to this country to the detriment of our farmers and of this country's import bill?

Mr. Oram: I see no contradition in these two Questions.

Subsistence Agriculture

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether he will increase the level of technical assistance given to developing countries to assist that section of their population working in the field of subsistence agriculture; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Oram: As is indicated in paragraphs 11–12 of the recent White Paper Cmnd. 3976, it is already my right hon. Friend's policy to increase aid and technical assistance for food and agricultural development, including the subsistence sector, which is of course predominant in the agriculture of most developing countries.

Mr. Jackson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply, but will not he acknowledge that between 70 and 90 per cent. of the population of developing countries is employed in agriculture, and that the highest priority should be given to development in subsistence agriculture?

Mr. Oram: I fully acknowledge the overwhelming importance of this sector of agriculture for developing countries, but I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind that we cannot devote our technical assistance exclusively to this, because foreign exchange earnings through the export of cash crops are also very important to the budgets of developing countries.

Pensions

Mr. Tilney: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what is the average delay in transferring pensions paid locally in Commonwealth countries and which are ultimately required to be paid in the country in which the pensioner is resident.

Mr. Oram: As overseas pensioners, who elect to have their pensions paid locally, are themselves responsible for the remission to the countries in which they reside, I do not have the relevant information.

Mr. Tilney: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that pensioners in Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service from Tanzania resident in South Africa, and also pensioners from Ghana and Nigeria, are suffering considerable hardship? Is there not a case for again looking into the question as to whether all pensions should not be taken over by Her Majesty's Government and aid reduced accordingly?

Mr. Oram: I am aware of the difficulties in relation to Nigeria and Tanzania. In the case of Tanzania, there

have been successful approaches through the High Commission in Dar-es-Salaam and we seem to have overcome the difficulty in that instance. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that it is a much more serious problem in relation to Nigeria because of the stringent exchange regulations as a result of the war there.

Mr. Hooley: Would my hon. Friend agree that it is a ridiculous concept that these pensions should be regarded as aid at all? Is it not high time that we revised our policy on this important matter?

Mr. Oram: This matter was fully debated in the House recently. I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend said on that occasion.

Rhodesia (Pensions)

Mr. Tilney: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what arrangements he will now make regarding pensions payable to former members of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service or of the old Colonial Service in Rhodesia.

Mr. Oram: Security Council Resolution No. 253 expressly permits the payment of such pensions. I do not envisage that the closing of Rhodesia House or withdrawal of our Residual Mission in Salisbury will affect the payment of overseas pensions in Rhodesia.

Mr. Tilney: Is the Minister aware that that statement will be received with joy by some of the pensioners who cannot possibly leave Rhodesia, even if they want to, because they cannot sell their houses?

Mr. Oram: I recognise that.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SERVICES

Supplementary Benefits (Disregards)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has for increasing the value of disregards in assessing claims for supplementary benefits.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Norman Pentland): I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the main amounts of disregard specified in the Ministry of Social Security Act. There are


no plans at present for increases in these amounts; such increases would only benefit those who are already living above the normal supplementary benefit levels.

Mr. Hamilton: Could my hon. Friend say whether these disregards will be looked at when the supplementary benefits are increased in the autumn? Is he aware, for instance, that the derisory increase of £1 a week in pension to miners is being inhibited by the knowledge that if the pension is increased a consequent amount will be deducted from the supplementary benefit?

Mr. Pentland: I am aware of my hon. Friend's concern, but he will agree that the present disregard means that the retired miners who have an occupational pension and are on supplementary benefit already are £1 a week better off than the person without the disregarded income? If we extend disregards too far it will undermine the main purpose of the supplementary benefit scheme, which seeks to bring people's other resources up to a guaranteed level. Furthermore, it will not help the poorest people who are on supplementary benefit.

Mr. Dean: Could the hon. Gentleman confirm that the increased charges for teeth and spectacles when they come into operation will be disregarded for supplementary benefit?

Mr. Pentland: Any increases in that direction will operate, as they have always operated in the past, under the supplementary benefit scheme.

Insured Persons (Self-employed)

Mr. Milne: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will institute an inquiry into the extent and effect of changes being made in the contracts of employed persons seeking to transfer themselves into a self-employed category.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. David Ennals): A regular check is made on the numbers of insured persons contributing as employed, self-employed and non-employed. There has been a increase in the number of self-employed in recent years, but this is very small in relation to the total number of persons in employment. I do not think that a general inquiry is called for.

Mr. Milne: Is my hon. Friend aware that the growing number needs to be looked into? There is a considerable increase in the service and distributive trades, with people transferring to the self-employed category in order to avoid taxation, and this can have a detrimental effect on payments made to persons concerned.

Mr. Ennals: As I said in the original Answer, the actual increase is very small; but there has been an increase, particularly in the construction industry. The increase in this industry is one of the matters upon which the Phelps Brown Committee has been reporting, and the Government are now considering the Report and the action they will take.

Social Security Office (Chelmsley Wood)

Mr. Speed: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will expedite plans to provide the Social Security office facilities at Chelmsley Wood.

Mr. Pentland: The Chelmsley Wood area is at present catered for by two offices in Washwood Heath, which are to be merged in new premises this August. The southern part of the area will, however, eventually be covered by a new office in South Yardley, more conveniently situated than the present one. An additional office in Chelmsley Wood itself would not at present be justified, but we shall keep the possible future need for such an office in mind.

Mr. Speed: Does the Minister realise that Chelmsley Wood, when the office is completed in two and a half years, will have a population greater than the city of Worcester? There is already considerable evidence of hardship caused by people having to travel long distances to take advantage of health and social security services? Could he consider the possibility of temporary provision in the meantime until a final decision is reached?

Mr. Pentland: No. I am aware of the position. As I have said, we are keeping an eye on this area, in regard to the possible future need for such an office. We will keep it very much in mind.

Pensions and Benefits (Budget Increases)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his estimate of the number of retirement pensioners and of other recipients of Social Security payments who next November will not receive as a net addition to their incomes the full increases proposed in the Budget Statement.

Mr. Ennals: As the right hon. Gentleman will recall from the days when he had responsibility for these matters, this will depend, to take the main factors, on the numbers with supplementary benefit, or with less than the standard rate of insurance benefit or with a liability to income tax, and on the extent to which these categories overlap.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the hon. Gentleman dispute that the number is likely to be of the order of 2 million? To minimise disappointment among a large number of people next November, will he so arrange any advance publicity to make it clear in advance that substantial numbers will not benefit by the advertised figures?

Mr. Ennals: The arrangements for increases in supplementary benefit have been made widely known. They will be made more widely known when the Regulations are debated on Thursday. I will ensure by means of publicity that it is understood that the recipients of supplementary benefit received an increase last October.

Mr. Marks: In addition to giving publicity to those facts, will my hon. Friend also give publicity to the fact that those on supplementary benefit have had an increase every year since this Government came in and that those on the standard rate of pension have had one every two years? This means that persons on supplementary benefit will have had an increase of 70 per cent. in five years.

Mr. Ennals: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I can confirm this. I was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman put down the Question, because at one time, when he was Minister, over a two-year period when the level was raised for National Insurance the level for

National Assistance was not increased to the same extent, so the National Assistance recipient did very badly indeed.

Graduated Pension Scheme

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement as to his intentions in respect of increasing pensions earned under the graduated pension provisions of the National Insurance Act, 1959.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what changes he proposes to make in the existing State earnings-related pension scheme ; and on what date they will take effect.

Mr. Ennals: Under the Bill now before Parliament it is proposed to raise the rate of contributions on earnings between £18 and £30 a week from half per cent. to 3¼ per cent. for employer and employee from 3rd November, 1969. When the Government's proposed new scheme starts, the existing graduated scheme will be wound up, but pensions already earned will be preserved and will be included in the two-yearly reviews of benefit rates. The target date for the new scheme is April 1972.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does that Answer mean that the hon. Gentleman does not propose to do anything to meet the representations made by those responsible for pension funds on the subject of the retrospective change of the option under the 1959 Act?

Mr. Ennals: There have been representations taking a variety of different points of view concerning this matter. It would be absolutely impossible to satisfy all those who make representations which are directly contrary to each other.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: If the graduated pension scheme is to be changed, would it not be better to put it on the basis of a higher rate of interest rather than to relate it to the cost of living?

Mr. Ennals: I do not think that would be a satisfactory answer.

Lord Balniel: Why do the Government consider the provision of a taxpayers' subsidy for the graduated pension scheme is of higher priority than


the provision of pensions for the over-80s or the civilian disabled?

Mr. Ennals: There is a priority to give some justice to those who, under the right hon. Gentleman's scheme, have not had any opportunity of seeing their pensions rise but of seeing them shrivel. This is a priority, and this is why the Government announced their decision.

Life Offices Association (Discussions)

Sir B. Rhys Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement upon the progress of his discussions with representatives of the Life Offices Association in regard to contracting out of the proposed new State superannuation scheme.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Richard Crossman): As I said in reply to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) on 10th June, we have now issued a second consultative document on the contracting-out arrange-merits. The Life Offices Association is one of the organisations to which copies of both consultative documents have been sent, and we await their comments.—[Vol. 784, c. 249–50.]

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Would it not be better to call off this discussion and to admit that abatement is all very well in theory but in practice it will give rise to insoluble problems?

Mr. Crossman: I totally disagree with the hon. Gentleman. On the contrary, it is absolutely vital to the future of all pension schemes, whether private or public, that we should have an early announcement, if possible, of the agreement on contracting-out arrangements.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is it not a fact that, though the right hon. Gentleman answered the Question in terms of contracting-out, he has not offered contracting-out to those with whom he is negotiating and is offering no more than a very modified form of abatement?

Mr. Crossman: There was never any question of contracting-out of the whole scheme. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, under his scheme there was the flat rate, from which there was no contracting-out, and a small element on top from which there was. We are making a comparable arrangement, but with a wholly earnings-related contribution.

Earning Rule

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, having regard to increased living costs arising from larger National Insurance contributions, whether he will advance the proposed maximum earnings rule of £7 10s. weekly per adult male to £10, and proportionately for women, in order to promote productivity and help the elderly.

Mr. Ennals: No, Sir. The decisive factor here is what level of earnings is wholly compatible with retirement. We consider £7 10s. is the right point at which the earnings rule should start to operate.

Sir G. Nabarro: I suggest that that is the wrong figure. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, having regard to the remorseless and unremitting increase in the cost of living and the approximate increase at the same rate in the wages of the community, it would not be unreasonable, when pensions go up, to set the earnings rule figure at £10, not £7 10s.? Will he recognise this matter, in the interests of productivity, in attracting back to sedentary jobs more elderly people?

Mr. Ennals: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The figure is being increased in the Bill at present before the House. It means that an employed married pensioner and his wife would be able to receive as much as £15 12s. before the rule takes effect. When I hear the hon. Gentleman making a great deal of fuss, he might be interested to know that this provision affects only 16,000 pensioners in the country.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Nurses (Meals Allowance)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the financial settlement agreed upon relating to additional payments for nurses consequent on the introduction of the pay-as-you-eat scheme ; and what representations he has received against the agreement.

Mr. Crossman: The Nurses and Midwives Whitley Council have agreed on the introduction of a special meal allowance of £48 a year for


younger students and pupils, nursing auxiliaries and nursing assistants who are paying for their meals as taken. I have received no representations against the agreement.

Mr. Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend saying that he has had no protests by the nurses on the ground that the allowance is taxable? Can he say what will be the net figure after the young nurse has paid tax, because it will be a minimal sum not adequate to meet her needs?

Mr. Crossman: I can only repeat what I have said. I thought that this was a satisfactory agreement. As for the matter of taxation, that question should be put to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Dame Irene Ward: Although the right hon. Gentleman has had no individual representations, does he not regard representations made in Parliament as proper representations, or does he ignore Parliament? Members of Parliament have made many representations. What action does the Secretary of State intend to take to make the scheme more realistic and human to meet the needs of the nurses?

Mr. Crossman: I always appreciate the vigour of the hon. Lady's representations or protests. What I said was that I had not had any representations from the nurses. I say in all seriousness that what the Whitley Council has achieved has satisfied the main grievance of student nurses. I am sure that the hon. Lady and I are agreed about that.

Sir G. Nabarro: Would the Secretary of State bear in mind that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has always specifically excluded from tax a luncheon voucher for a maximum of 3s. per diem for any person employed who is not a nurse? As this amounts to approximately 3s. per diem or £48 per annum, could not a similar tax-free provision be applied to student nurses?

Mr. Crossman: That again, I suggest, is a question which should be put to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Transplant Surgery

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has yet received the report of his Ad-

visory Committee on transplant surgery; and if he will publish their main conclusions.

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will now make a further statement upon human organ transplants.

Mr. Crossman: I cannot at present add to what my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State said in the debate on 20th June, but I hope to make a statement shortly.

Mr. Smith: As everyone agrees that there must be completely adequate safeguards for prospective donors, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that legislation is now urgent? Is he aware that recent cases have done nothing to alleviate public anxiety, and that it is important for the medical procession that the public should be wholeheartedly behind it in this import new development?

Mr. Crossman: I agree that any legislation should have the full support of the consensus of public opinion. But we had better await the report of the Advisory Committee.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that in two consecutive Parliamentary Sessions the Government have rejected my Private Member's Measure, Renal Transplatation, on grounds that they wished to legislate comprehensively for all human organs and would not proceed organ by organ? Is that still the position and policy of Her Majesty's Government, and can we have an undertaking that this important legislation will be included in the new Session—if there is one—next October?

Mr. Crossman: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman could have listened very carefully to my Answer to the previous Question. I said that whether we should have legislation or not would depend on the report of the Advisory Committee. I advise the hon. Gentleman to wait for that report. The answer to the first part of the question is "yes".

Dr. John Dunwoody: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the demands made by transplant surgery on hospital services, particularly on blood banks, is reducing the standards of service available for day-to-day treatment of routine conditions, and will he look into it?

Mr. Crossman: This is a different question. I will certainly look into it, and I am prepared to answer a Question on that subject if my hon. Friend will put one down.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: As well as dealing with this highly technical and important question, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the report will concern itself primarily with the social and eithical problems involved?

Mr. Crossman: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — HEALTH

Doctors' Premises (Financing of Improvements)

Mr. Goodhew: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will take steps to authorise the repayment of medical practice compensation to those doctors in the National Health Service who require the money for the improvement of their surgery premises, or to repay bank loans incurred for that purpose.

Mr. Crossman: No, Sir. Other means are available for helping doctors to finance improvements to their premises.

Mr. Goodhew: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that large numbers of doctors in the National Health Service have to pay very high rates of interest to banks to enable them to improve their surgeries while the Government sit on the compensation owed to them and give them only 2¾ per cent.? Is he also aware that the banks are trying, because of Government policy, to persuade doctors to repay loans? Would it not be simpler for the Government to give to the doctors the money that is owed to them?

Mr. Crossman: It is more sensible to keep the problem of compensation separate from the problem of assisting doctors to build their own premises. There are a large number of young doctors who like to build their own premises and who do not have compensation. The system is working satisfactorily.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether doctors who are borrowing from banks to improve their premises will be allowed to continue deducting their interest tax-free

because the expenditure is for this purpose?

Mr. Crossman: That is a different question which should be put down separately.

Ampicillin

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the total amount spent by the National Health Service in purchasing Ampicillin for the year ended 31st December, 1968 and what percentage of the total market of broad spectrum antibiotics this represents.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Julian Snow): It is not Government policy to disclose information of this kind relating to the product of an individual manufacturer.

Mr. Pavitt: Is my hon. Friend aware that nearly 50 per cent. of this market is held by one firm, and as it has had an increase of £5 million in its profits and the profit on its equity capital has risen from 31 per cent. to 36 per cent., will he now consider issuing a compulsory licence under Section 41 of the Patents Act?

Mr. Snow: I should not like to comment too freely at the moment on the financial structure of this company. But perhaps my hon. Friend should know that, since its introduction in 1961, there have been nine reductions in the price of this particular drug, two of those reductions being in 1968. We spend about £15 million a year on broad spectrum antibiotics. Doctors have been alerted to the high cost of this important drug so they may judge in a particular case whether the advantages of Ampicillin are so great that it should be prescribed in preference to a cheaper drug.

Mr. Dean: Does the Minister agree that this drug makes an important contribution to the export record of the pharmaceutical industry?

Mr. Snow: Yes, as do many others. Much is due to the use and practice of the drug in the National Health Service.

Prescription Charges (Young Persons)

Mr. Dickens: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take steps to exempt all young persons


receiving full-time education up to and including the age of 19 years from payment of prescription charges.

Mr. Crossman: No, Sir. Any who would suffer hardship who are 16 or over can apply for exemption. Those aged 15 are dependants and any claim for them should be made by the head of the family.

Mr. Dickens: Is there not a strong case for uniformity of treatment here, in that the parents of the children concerned get family allowances already? As the State recognises a duty to young people nowadays in this age group, should not we extend it in the way the Question suggests?

Mr. Crossman: I am certainly very ready to consider the point my hon. Friend puts, but it is unlikely that we shall make a change in the exemption method.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEGAL SYSTEM (OPERATION AND ADMINISTRATION)

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked Mr. Attorney-General whether he will arrange to have an investigation made into the operation and administration of the legal system with a view to expediting the procedure and lessening the costs ; and whether he will commission a firm of organisation and methods consultants to undertake such an investigation and to report.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): Various important aspects of the operation and administration of the legal system are or have recently been under investigation by the Royal Commission on Assizes and Quarter Sessions, the Law Commission and several departmental committees, many of whose recommendations have already been implemented. Our legal system is kept under continuous review. I do not, however, consider that any comprehensive investigation by a firm of consultants or otherwise would be either useful or practicable at this stage.

Mr. Lewis: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there are many cases which in some instances take two, three and four years to reach the courts, and that very often it is extremely profit-

able to keep cases going for a long time, so making it very expensive for litigants? Is this not the only profession of which it might be said that the longer a case goes on the better it is for those concerned?

The Attorney-General: I repudiate the suggestion that these delays are occasioned by the deliberate practice of the legal profession in prolonging cases for their own personal enrichment. That is an unworthy and unjustifiable accusation. However, that does not mean that we are not greatly concerned about delays in legal proceedings, and we are doing what we can about them.

Mr. Carlisle: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say when the Report of the Royal Commission to which he has referred will be published?

The Attorney-General: I hope in the autumn.

Mr. Whitaker: Will my right hon. and learned Friend study the comments of Lord Goodman last Thursday evening about the shortcomings of the system? Can he say when we shall have neighbourhood legal centres which that great Socialist country, the United States, had many years ago?

The Attorney-General: The latter suggestion is one of the matters which my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has referred to his Advisory Committee on Legal Aid. The views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, I had the pleasure of hearing from the horse's mouth on Friday.

Oral Answers to Questions — YOUNG versus GREATER LONDON COUNCIL

Mr. Iremonger: asked the Attorney-General if he will refer to the Director of Public Prosecutions the prima facie evidence of conspiracy on the part of the London County Council valuation officers in 1962 as set out obiter by two Lords Justices in the judgment in the Court of Appeal in the case of Young versus Greater London Council.

The Attorney-General: I have studied the judgments to which the hon. Member refers and I find nothing in them to suggest that the members of the court were of the opinion that the case disclosed


evidence of the commission of a criminal offence.

Mr. Iremonger: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman two little "quickies"? First, is he aware that there are now 20 names appended to the Motion on the Order Paper demanding an inquiry into this scandal? Secondly, is he aware that, when the appellant brought the appeal, the valuation officers approached him with an offer of £20,000 to drop it?

The Attorney-General: What I do know is that there was no mention of the valuation officers in the judgment of the Court of Appeal, there was nothing to justify the allegation of conspiracy, and that the argument that the Traffic Advisory Committee's decision was not bona fide was abandoned.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUSTICES OF THE PEACE

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Attorney-General why he has issued instructions that no one owning land or employing labour shall be appointed as a justice of the peace ; and if he will make a statement.

The Attorney-General: I have not issued any such instructions, nor has my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, who is the authority responsible for the appointment of justices of the peace.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the Lord Chancellor has made several speeches in the past few months saying that he will refuse to appoint the gentleman concerned? Can we have a categorical denial from the learned Attorney-General that this will not be the practice in the future?

The Attorney-General: I have already given an emphatic denial. It is the case that it is the policy of my noble Friend to appoint to commissions of the peace persons from different sections of the local community, and particularly from among those who are wage earners. This policy is not new, but it has been applied rather more vigorously in recent years.

Mr. Oakes: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware how disappointing his reply is to many hon. Members on this side of the House? If he had adopted

this policy it would be the reversal of the policy of successive Governments for centuries. Will he tell us when it is proposed to pay magistrates in accordance with the decision of this House in the Bill?

The Attorney-General: The important fact is that magistrates should be selected for their competence to do the job. But it is fitting and proper that benches should now represent a cross-section of the community as a whole. On my hon. Friend's point about the payment of justices, when the economic situation permits the undertakings given will be fulfilled.

Mr. Iremonger: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On reflection, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply to Question 36, I beg to give notice that I will seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is one Question too late.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING (CUBE-CUTTING)

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Attorney-General when he first received information concerning the illegal practices known as cube-cutting; when he first decided to hold an investigation ; and when he now expects to be able to announce a conclusion to these investigations.

The Attorney-General: I first received information alleging cube-cutting on the 23rd January, 1969; on the 29th January, I asked the Director of Public Prosecutions to arrange for these allegations to be investigated by the police. The task of investigation has proved to be complicated and considerable, and I cannot forecast when it will be completed ; it necessarily involves a study of a great number of difficult commercial documents belonging to a number of shipping companies with which the shipping agents concerned did business.

Mr. Lewis: Surely there is enough information for some action to be taken? Five months have gone by. Can my right hon. and learned Friend give us some hope that, for instance, before the present Parliament ends action may be taken, or must it be left to the next Parliament?

The Attorney-General: I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that premature action which might produce no result or an unjust one would be unsatisfactory. The matter is being pressed with the utmost expedition.

Mr. Hogg: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman assist me in my ignorance, which may be shared by some other hon. Members? What is cube-cutting?

The Attorney-General: It is the practice of diminishing the weight actually carried in cargoes for the benefit of shipping agents.

Oral Answers to Questions — ACTIONS FOR ENTICEMENT AND BREACH OF PROMISE

Mr. Lipton: asked the Attorney-General (1) if he will take steps to end actions for enticement and breach of promise:
(2) why the Civil Judicial Statistics do not include the number of actions for enticement and breach of promise.

The Attorney-General: The Law Commission is examining both forms of action and it would be better to await their report before making a final decision in this matter. In the circumstances I do not think this is an appropriate moment for adding to the judicial statistics by including particulars of these actions.

Mr. Lipton: Does not the small number of these muck-raking unsavoury cases prove that they no longer serve any useful purpose? Is it really necessary to await the ponderous deliberations of the Law Commission before deciding to end what is admittedly a very unsatisfactory state of affairs?

The Attorney-General: I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend's views about these causes of actions. However, I would not describe the activities of the Law Commission as ponderous. They are efficient, and I think it cannot be said that they are unduly delayed. We had better wait to see what the Commission recommends.

Mr. Carlisle: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that it would be foolish, to remove the action for enticement unless at the same time something is done about the claim in damages

for adultery? If it were removed, the ridiculous position could arise whereby a husband had a claim but a wife had no form of claim?

The Attorney-General: That is precisely the kind of difficulty which needs consideration before rushing into premature action.

Mr. Hector Hughes: If my right hon. and learned Friend is taking steps on the lines indicated in these two Questions, will he at least make the terms of the recommendation sufficiently wide to deal with other undesirable relations between the sexes, male and female?

The Attorney-General: My right hon. and learned Friend's Question intrigues me. Perhaps one of these days he will descend to particulars.

Oral Answers to Questions — COURT CASE (WITNESS)

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: asked the Attorney-General why an inquiry made by Mr. B. J. Quirk, acting on behalf of Messrs. John Lovesay and Anthony Peterson, accused of murdering Mr. Sydney Epps on 24th January, 1968, addressed to the Director of Public Prosecutions requesting information from police records concerning a prosecution witness whose name has been sent to him, elicited a negative response, in view of the fact that a subsequent inquiry established that the witness had misled the court ; and whether he will make a statement.

The Attorney-General: At the time of the first inquiry from the defendants' solicitor, the information available to the Director of Public Prosecutions was that there were no convictions recorded against the witness. It was later reported to the Director that the witness had a number of convictions under various names, and he immediately informed the defendants' solicitor of the details.

Mr. Jackson: Will not my right hon. and learned Friend acknowledge that the information given me by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) in reply to a Question on 19th June, indicating that only one name and not the aliases of this witness was given, was incorrect? The aliases were given, and there is no reason why the record


should not have been provided to Mr. Quirk?

The Attorney-General: I am answerable in this House for the Director of Public Prosecutions, and he acted on the basis of the information supplied him by the police.

NIGERIA

Mr. Henig (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government are prepared to take to alleviate the fresh threat of mass starvation in Biafra.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): The British High Commissioner in Lagos has seen both General Gowon and Dr. Arikpo in the course of the last few days. The High Commissioner has, on my instructions, made clear to the Federal authorities our deep concern and hope that arrangements should urgently be made which will allow the flow of relief to be resumed.
The House will realise that such arrangements will also require the active co-operation of the Biafran leadership, particularly if daylight flights are to be instituted.
The Federal Government's new policy statement reaffirms that the Federal Government are prepared to allow relief supplies to rebel-held areas subject to proper inspection and control. Every-thing now turns on working out satisfactory arrangements between the Federal Government and the relief agencies on this basis, and, indeed, on the Biafran response.
The talks in Lagos between the Federal Government and the relief agencies began this morning and were resumed at 3 p.m. today. When the results of these negotiations are known, and I have been able to evaluate them, I hope to be able to make a further statement to the House.

Mr. Henig: Is my right hon. Friend aware that public concern and horror are mounting over the totally inadequate nature of the British Government's response to the position? Is he aware that from the statements made by Chief Enahoro on behalf of the Federal Mili

tary Government it would appear that mass starvation is now a weapon of war and that the war has become one of genocide?
Has not the time come for the British Government to break with their military allies in Lagos completely, once and for all, and fly in the food and medicines which, in the name of humanity, are needed by millions of starving people in Biafra?

Mr. Stewart: That question contains so many misstatements, but I will try to make my answer as brief as possible.
First, I do not wish to underrate the nature of the peril, but this is what Colonel Ojukwu himself said on 1st June:
We seem to have overcome the once imminent danger of mass starvation and can now look forward to a period, after the crisis, of comparative plenty. Our efforts in the land army programme give us visible signs all over our land of imminent victory in the war against want.
That is Colonel Ojukwu's judgment.
Secondly, it must be remembered that the Federal Government are engaged in resisting a rebellion. Many of us think that they are right to do so. Some hon. Members think that they are wrong. I hope that we shall all be prepared to respect each other's sincerity in this matter. In the course of that war, the Federal Government use the weapon of blockade, but have announced that they are prepared for the blockade to be breached in respect of both food and of medical supplies. I know of no historical parallel of a Government engaged in a war being prepared to do that. It would be possible for supplies to go in by land as soon as the Biafran leaders agree to this.
The accusation of genocide has been rejected by the international observers, and there are, indeed, 4 million witnesses against it—the 4 million Ibos who live in peace and go about their business under the Nigerian régime.

Mr. Braine: What the Secretary of State has just told the House about the Federal attitude is encouraging, and we must await the outcome of the talks, though we hope that this will not be long delayed. The right hon. Gentleman has quoted Colonel Ojukwu as saying that rebel held territory is self-sufficient. Can


he say something about the facts of the situation? Is it the Government's information that large-scale starvation is imminent? If so, what are the objections on either side to suitably supervised daylight flights, which seem to me to be the sensible solution to the problem?

Mr. Stewart: I quoted Colonel Ojukwu because I think that if accusations are to be made against either the Nigerian Government or Her Majesty's Government of attempting to starve the Ibo people it is important to bring this evidence out, but I admit that it is genuinely difficult to know what the exact facts are.
That there is real difficulty I do not deny. That it is often exaggerated for propaganda purposes, I regret is also true. I cannot see any reasonable objections to daylight flights. We shall be glad to help in that. The Federal Nigerian Government are prepared to do that. As present, Uli airport, where planes would have to land, is made unusable by Colonel Ojukwu during daylight hours. It is very important that this obstacle should be removed.

Mr. Winnick: Whatever may be the rights and wrongs in the Nigerian civil war, will my right hon. Friend accept that the British people are not willing to allow possibly 1 million people to starve to death in Biafra? We remember the statement made last week by a Nigerian official that starvation is a legitimate weapon. If agreement cannot be reached today, will the British Government take other action with leading countries to try to get emergency food supplies to those most in need in Biafra-held territories?

Mr. Stewart: We and, I am sure, other countries will take every action to try to get food to those who need it, but I think that the House and the country must understand that the obstacles to this do not arise from the policy of the Nigerian Government. They arise from the decision of the Biafran leaders.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Would the Secretary of State care to reply, in his absence, to the statement made by the Leader of the Liberal Party yesterday on the radio? [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] Does not the Secretary of State agree that a statement by the leader of a political party would be better made in this House rather than on the Sunday radio?

Mr. Stewart: I was surprised at the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman. If I remember rightly, he gave his support to the allegation of genocide, for which there is not a shadow of evidence and which is, I think, a shocking misrepresentation of the facts.

Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order. Will you, Mr. Speaker, reflect upon the orderliness of a question which makes my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State responsible for the statements of the Leader of the Liberal Party? I always understood that a Minister had to reply only where he had Ministerial responsibility. Surely it does not extend to this matter.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) is perfectly correct, but the Secretary of State himself chose to answer.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Have not the Biafran leaders recently offered to accept daylight flights by Joint Church Aid and the Red Cross, provided that they are not exploited for military purposes? Therefore, will Her Majesty's Government use their tremendous and undoubted influence in Lagos to see that this offer is accepted before another million are dead?

Mr. Stewart: I think that we all understand that it is difficult to get completely accurate and up-to-date statements of the positions of all the parties, but, as I understand, the Biafran leaders have said that they will only accept daylight flights in addition to night flights and not as a substitute for them. I think that the whole House realises that the significance of night flights is that it is at night that arms and military material are flown in to the secessionists. The Federal Government have, therefore, said that anyone who engages in night flights must do so as his own risk. I would have thought that the right answer, therefore, was the cessation of night flights and the introduction both of daylight flights and, which is far more important, because all the aircraft we can muster cannot deal with what is required, the opening of the land routes. That is what matters.

Mr. David Steel: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that throughout the long period of conflict there have been deep suspicions on the Biafran side about


supplies coming by land through Federal-held Nigeria? Regardless of whether those suspicions are justified or not, will the right hon. Gentleman say that he understands the reasons for them and use his influence with the Federal Government to try to lay emphasis on the air routes which he said earlier would be acceptable to him?

Mr. Stewart: We must spell this out. If one wants adequate supplies carried in, there ought to be land routes. I know that there are objections by the rebel leaders to this. I do not believe that those objections are of such weight that they justify the denial of necessary supplies to their own people. But, failing land routes, I agree that we ought to try to get daylight flights going or the Cross River route which is now under discussion. However, it is not the Federal Government who oppose daylight flights.

Dr. John Dunwoody: Would my right hon. Friend accept that no satisfactory solution can be found for this tragic situation as long as the war continues? Will he explore yet again with other countries the possibility of exerting economic and political pressure on both sides to achieve a cease-fire and meet round the conference table? Only in this way will lives be saved in this tragic confrontation.

Mr. Stewart: That goes rather beyond the original Question, although this is a matter which we have often debated. Her Majesty's Government have used every effort, not only recently but over a long period, to try, first, to avert this conflict and, later, to bring it to an end. If any opportunity occurs where we can helpfully act to that purpose again, we shall take it.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Does it not really amount to this? Land routes are the only effective means of dealing with the long-term problem, but a great deal could be done if only the daylight flights were allowed. Therefore, an unequivocal decision is required from Colonel Ojukwu that these flights will be allowed, and then they can be arranged by the Powers interested in helping to avert starvation.

Mr. Stewart: I am sure that this is right. I know that some hon. Members take a different view from that of the Government, and have been in touch with

Colonel Ojukwu. I try not to criticise anyone's sincerity or good intentions, bust I do say that anyone who has contact with Colonel Ojukwu ought to shout loudly in his ear that he should allow relief to come either by daylight flights or by land.

Mr. James Johnson: No doubt my right hon. Friend heard the sensational but unsubstantiated allegations of 1 million Ibos dying. What estimate has Colonel Ojukwu himself made in the refugee camps and other centres about starving Ibos? Has my right hon. Friend any knowledge of this?

Mr. Stewart: The House will realise that exact and reliable information is difficult to come by, but at one time the allegation was that there were as many as 3 million people in refugee camps. The Biafran Rehabilitation Commission, however, has recently said that there are fewer than 1 million. But both to these and to others help could be offered if the land routes were open.

Mr. Sandys: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very wide measure of understanding for the line taken by the Government in this unhappy situation?

Mr. Stewart: I hope so. I know that this has been for hon. Members in all parts of the House a genuinely difficult question to solve. I have set out in previous debates my reasons why I believe the attempt by some Ibos to deal with their grievances by secession was wrong for Nigeria and wrong for Africa as a whole. This fact we must take into account in dealing with the whole matter. Subject to that, if there is anything Her Majesty's Government can do within reason to relieve human suffering and prevent starvation, we shall be glad to do it.

Mr. Whitaker: Would my right hon. Friend think it helpful to propose that the United Nations should supervise the relief programme and ensure that neither side takes military advantage of it?

Mr. Stewart: If I remember rightly, it was at the suggestion of Her Majesty's Government that there was a United Nations report on this matter at all. The Federal Nigerian Government have proposed that any land routes for relief


should be policed by representatives of the Organisation of African Unity, and this seems to me to be quite a reasonable proposal.

Mr. Longden: What corroboration has the right hon. Gentleman for what Colonel Ojukwu says? I have no contact whatsoever with Colonel Ojukwu. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that there is no substance in the reports from all these responsible journalists, from The Times upwards, or downwards? Can there not be one Nigeria which is a Federal Nigeria? Is not Australia one nation?

Mr. Stewart: Indeed, that is the whole point. It is the view of the Federal Government that there should be one Nigeria, but that it should be a Federal State with a proper position for the Ibo people in it. That has been the argument all along.
I quoted Colonel Ojukwu's statement for this reason. It is genuinely difficult to know what the exact facts are, but we do know from the past that the danger of starvation, although it has been there, has sometimes been unscrupulously exaggerated solely for propaganda purposes. I thought it right, therefore, to put the House in possession of what Colonel Ojukwu himself had said.

Mr. Roebuck: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the rebel régime—not Biafra, for there is no such place as Biafra—has any rationing system to ensure that relief supplies go to women, children and civilians and not to the armed forces?

Mr. Stewart: No, Sir. Our information is that there is no system of that kind.

Mr. Crouch: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that not everyone in the country is in full sympathy with the Government's view that the best way to settle the civil war is to take one side in it? Does he not agree that perhaps we could have greater influence, or even some influence, with Colonel Ojukwu if we did not take sides in this civil war?

Mr. Stewart: What the hon. Gentleman suggests is very attractive, but I ask him to look at this fact. It was clearly understood, when Nigeria moved to in-

dependence, that she could rely on us for some of her supplies of arms. This is something about which a newly-independent country must have some assurances. That meant that Britain was probably the only country in the world that could not, in fact or in honour, be neutral about this.
If we continued the supplies, it would be assumed that we supported the Nigerian Government. If we cut off supplies that they had reasonable grounds to expect, on the ground that they were fighting a rebellion, the inevitable conclusion must be that the rebellion was justified.
In this situation, we had to make a choice. For reasons that I have often given to the House—and I am not unaware of the dreadful human issues involved in this situation and the anxieties of conscience that one has about it—I could not find it right in conscience or policy to say that this rebellion was justified.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: If the Government had assisted to secure a ban on arms to both sides, would not the inevitable conclusion have been that they considered that the matter could not be settled by a war but only by peaceful means? Is not that still the case? Will not the Government, therefore, endeavour to do what my hon. Friend suggested, namely, take an initiative for bringing the war to an end?

Mr. Stewart: I think that the House knows that we have done this more than once already. I think that it is now generally agreed, now that people have had time to review the facts, that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's visit to Nigeria was valuable both in securing proper understanding between this country and Nigeria and in bringing home to the Nigerian Government the deep anxiety there was about the reckless use of military power.
We have also sought more than once to try to get international agreement on the stopping of arms supplies, but if that is to be done effectively it has got to be policed from inside Nigeria. That means a cease-fire. I earnestly hope that the Ibo people will realise that a ceasefire and discussions on the basis of one Federal Nigeria with a proper place for the Ibo people is the right answer to this tragic problem.

Sevaral Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.

TEXTILE INDUSTRY (STRUCTURE)

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Anthony Crosland): With permission, I shall make a statement about the structure of the textile industry.
On 6th February, I told the House that Courtauld had agreed, at my request, to withdraw its bid for English Calico, and that the Government had decided that the future structure of the Lancashire industry should be examined thoroughly and objectively in the light of the Textile Council's Report on Productivity and Efficiency. The council's report was published on 31st March.
On 12th February, I informed the House that I was asking my hon. Friend the Minister of State to discuss the problem of structure at length with the major firms in the industry, the textile trade unions, the man-made fibre producers and a number of the industry's major customers. He has now done so, and has been greatly helped by the advice of a small group including Sir Joseph Lockwood, the Chairman of the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation, Sir James Steel, the Chairman of the Textile Council, and Mr. P. N. Davies, an industrial adviser to the Government.
In considering the question of concentration and rationalisation in the industry, I have attached great importance to the Textile Council's view on one of the basic essentials, namely, that if the industry is to become fully competitive the existing groups must integrate their activities by developing closer technical and commercial links between the various stages of production and marketing. The main groups in the industry have grown rapidly by merger and acquisition in recent years, and, as the Textile Council pointed out in its report, most of them are still in the process of sorting out their constituent parts.
The Minister of State's group took the view that the prospect of further mergers and takeovers among these groups might in present circumstances increase the problems of management and could,

through the perpetuation of uncertainty, seriously impede the internal reorganisation and integration which has yet to be achieved. I accept the group's view and I have, therefore, concluded that, on balance, the best interests of the industry would not be served by a merger between any two of the larger firms in the Lancashire industry at the present time or by a takeover of any of these firms by overseas interests, The need now is for a period of consolidation.
A standstill for a period on major acquisitions in the textile field will not prevent the larger firms from improving their structural balance either by acquiring smaller firms, or by transferring capacity between themselves, unless the result would be to create or intensify a monopoly at any stage of manufacture or distribution. But any proposal for a merger between two or more large firms which might be expected substantially to reduce competition in the textile field will always be a matter of national importance.
While, therefore, the present standstill should not be seen as a bar to further major rationalisation at some later date, there can be no question of this taking place without the Government being satisfied that the benefits to the public interest outweigh the disadvantages of reduced competition.
Apart from the special difficulties arising from monopoly, the Government do not consider that, in present circumstances, they need to take a view on the linking of fibre production with textile manufacture. It follows that the Government would see no objection if an existing fibre producer with textile interests wished to diversify into new fibres.
In arriving at these conclusions, I have also taken into account the Monopolies Commission's Report on the Supply of Cellulosic Fibres.
There remains the question of rationalisation in the rest of the industry, and the position of the medium size and small firms. The Textile Council proposed that new integrated groups and consortia should be formed from among these firms, and I attach great importance to this. I am employing two consultants to advise me on what can be done, and I am glad to say that they are meeting with an excellent response from firms in the industry.
Sir Joseph Lockwood has assured me that the I.R.C. is very ready to help with any schemes which may emerge, and I shall certainly call on this help at the appropriate moment.

Sir K. Joseph: Have the Government, on the occasion of Courtauld dropping a bid which, if contested, it might never have won, rejected, without having the guts to say so, all the six recommendations of the Monopolies Commission on Courtauld and the cellulosic fibre industry, including its recommendation that the E.F.T.A. cartel should end and import duties should be reduced?
If they have rejected those recommendations, what are the reasons for their rejection, or, if the President of the Board of Trade can give us no reasons, is he not open to the suggestion that he has simply been horse-trading with the recommendations of the Monopolies Commission?

Mr. Crosland: I cannot in the slightest understand the reference to horse-trading. The position is perfectly plain. My announcement covers the recommendation of the Monopolies Commission on the structure of the industry. The remaining recommendations of the report on cellulosic fibres relating to tariffs and the rest will be covered when I make a final statement on the Textile Council's study relating to the tariff situation and other matters. There has been no horse-trading of any kind whatever.

Mr. Thornton: Is it my right hon. Friend's intention fully to use the resources of the I.R.C. in the necessary restructuring of the industry and in securing a better structural balance within the larger firms in the industry?

Mr. Crosland: Yes, Sir; it is certainly our intention to call on the resources of the I.R.C., as I said in my statement. In fact, the I.R.C. is already working closely with the two consultants I mentioned and with the Board of Trade. The consultants have already seen more than 70 firms in the industry, and sufficient progress has been made in a number of cases to enable the I.R.C. to begin discussions with the firms concerned on prospective mergers.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: May I, for my part, congratulate the President of the Board of Trade on at last putting down

the foot of the Board of Trade on merger-mania? He has struck a blow against the merger-mania and monopoly-mania with which other Departments of the Government seem to be infected, and for that reason he deserves the congratulation of all those who believe in free competition, free trade and the ancient and sterling virtues.

Mr. Crosland: Striking a blow is more flattering than being accused of horse-trading, so to that extent I welcome the hon. and learned Gentleman's question.

Mr. J. T. Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his rather cautious statement will be received with sympathy in Lancashire, if not with wild enthusiasm? Is he aware that those of us on this side who represent textile areas in our famous textile county are still most perturbed at the fact that the major source of trouble for us in Lancashire is not necessarily inefficiency—we are all in favour of increased efficiency—but that Britain is still the dumping-ground for all the excess textile production of the rest of the world?
So long as 53 per cent. of our home market is occupied by imported textile products, we shall remain sceptical about the full advantages of increased rationalisation—which we support—being achieved by the industry itself. Will he bear in mind, since he makes a reference to marketing, that, in our opinion—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Long supplementary questions mean fewer supplementary questions.

Mr. Price: With great respect Mr. Speaker, I am about to finish on this point. It is a most important question which we have not debated in the House for a long time.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the separation of textile production in Lancashire, its historic home, from marketing, which has been hived off to Aldgate, in London, for many years, is one of the greatest handicaps against which we are still struggling? Will he encourage the reunification of marketing and production?

Mr. Crosland: No statement which 1 or any other President of the Board of Trade could make about the textile industry would evoke wild enthusiasm in Lancashire. Sympathy is the most one can hope for.
I know my hon. Friend's strong views and those of the industry about the level of imports. I shall be making a statement on the import question during the course of this year. I stress this point, however: whatever views are taken about other problems of the textile industry, an attempt to get the right structure for the industry is a necessary condition for future prosperity.

Mr. Carlisle: The right hon. Gentleman referred to making a further statement about the future of the textile industry, particularly imports or tariffs. He will appreciate that this is a matter of urgency if confidence is to be revived in the industry. Will his statement be made before the Summer Recess?

Mr. Crosland: I appreciate that this is an extremely urgent matter. I have already told the industry that I hope to make a statement at the latest by the early autumn; and if I can possibly make it earlier, I shall.

Mr. Alfred Morris: With regard to the larger enterprises, can my right hon. Friend say for how long he expects the period of consolidation to last? When, on the most favourable estimate, does he expect the consultants' report on medium and smaller firms?

Mr. Crosland: As to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I cannot give a definite date. The purpose of the standstill is to allow the larger firms to achieve the degree of internal integration which was the original object of their mergers. I would not like to hazard a guess as to how long it will taka them to do this. It might take some, considerable time.
With regard to the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I do not want to give a specific date. I hope that the consultants with the help of the I.R.C., will produce a continuous process of mergers and rationalisation among the smaller firms.

Mr. Oakes: Will my right hon. Friend give the House more details of the help the I.R.C. will give towards the integration of the industry? Will it be purely advisory, or is it to be financial? Who are the two consultants whom my right hon. Friend has appointed?

Mr. Crosland: I cannot answer my hon. Friend's first question specifically now. At present, the help of the I.R.C. is in an advisory capacity. Whether anything more than that will be needed, we shall have to see with the development of the exercise. One of the two consultants is Mrs. Caroline Miles, a well-known figure in the industry, associated with the Textile Council. The other is Mr. Ord-Johnstone, also a well-known figure in Lancashire.

Mr. Biffen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the ambitions and activities of the I.R.C. and Mr. Charles Villiers are becoming increasingly controversial? What expectations have we that the I.R.C. and the Textile Council will be any better at putting together groups of textile companies than the Shipbuilding Industry Board has been successful in putting together groups of shipyards?

Mr. Crosland: I wholly reject that suggestion. Mr. Villiers and the I.R.C. have done an excellent job in achieving structural reorganisation in British industries which clearly needed it, and where it has been many years overdue.

NIGERIA

Mr. Henig: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9. for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the situation in Biafra".
I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that you have already been generous this afternoon in allowing a Private Notice Question and further questions and discussion on this matter, but it is sufficiently important, and regarded by the public as such, for the House to have a chance to debate it and put its different points of view.
The Nigerian civil war is a continuing phenomenon, but there is an important new fact, namely, that one party to it which has the means to deal with this has decided that the International Red Cross and International Council of Churches may no longer send in aid to the victims.
The matter is specific, because we have reliable evidence from a number of important eyewitness that millions of


people are now starving in Biafra and will die unless immediate action is taken. There certainly seems to be much medical evidence to this effect.
There is urgency in this because, if the House were to wait to debate the matter in the ordinary course of business, as it might well be able to do in a week or two or a month or two, the tragedy that I have been intimating can happen will have happened already, and there will be no point in our debating the matter.
I have always believed that the procedures of the House made it possible for us to give humanity a hearing at moments of supreme crisis like that at present in Biafra and Nigeria. I do not believe that there can be anything in the world more important than the threat of starvation and death for possibly millions of people. Today or tomorrow there is a chance that a debate in this House could lead to alleviation of the situation. By next week it may very well be too late. It is in that spirit that I seek to move the Adjournment.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig) gave me notice this morning that he might seek to raise a Standing Order No. 9 matter this afternoon, as did another hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the situation in Biafra".
I have given careful consideration to his speech, to all that has happened this afternoon, and to the statement of the Minister.
As the House knows, under the revised Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take account of the several factors set out in the Order, but to give no reason for my decision.
I have given careful consideration to all the representations that have been made, but I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the revised Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

FOREIGN TRAVEL ALLOWANCE (£50 LIMIT)

4.6 p.m.

Mr. John Peel: I beg to move.
That the £50 travel limit is unworthy of Great Britain and should be abolished.
I am very glad that after many attempts over nearly 12 years in the House to be successful in a Ballot my name eventually came out of the hat first and thus enabled me to move this Motion.
I regard this limit on our travel freedom as a typical piece of frustrating Socialism. It is an obstruction to one of the dearest freedoms of the British people, namely, our ancient freedom to travel and to move amongst other peoples and in other countries where and when we want. It should never have been reimposed in 1966, 21 years after the end of the last war and seven years after it had been abolished. It is bad on every count, and should be removed forthwith.
I shall submit a number of general reasons for my Motion and a number of more specific ones. It is understandable that during war it is necessary to have foreign exchange control. But when war is over free countries should remove it at the earliest possible moment. It is a badge of dictatorship.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Rubbish.

Mr. Peel: Such control was first introduced before the war by the Nazi Government of Germany. No other Government felt it necessary to introduce it in those days.
We remember the old saying, "How are the mighty fallen". Britain's power and strength, economic influence and influence amongst other people, and her greatness were created by the adventurous desire and readiness of her people to move out of their small island and travel far and wide. It is a very sad commentary that she should have dragged her feet—

Mr. Heffer: The idea that all the British people were able to travel all over the world is a lot of rubbish. Millions of our people who did not earn sufficient to keep body and soul together could not travel to the next town, never mind all over the world.

Mr. Peel: But the fact still remains that this small island would never have reached the stage it did reach if many millions of its people have not travelled abroad.
One of the saddest commentaries is how Britain dragged her feet after the war in getting rid of this obstacle. Instead of being in the forefront of the movement to get rid of it, she was very slow to follow others. However, she did, and I am glad to say that it was under a Tory Government in 1959. One of the great condemnations of Socialism and its restrictive philosophy in regard to people's freedom of choice is that it led a Socialist Government in 1966, with hardly a twinge of conscience, when they got into economic difficulties, as they always do, to reimpose this shackle upon us. It was a serious backward step and was both unnecessary and unforgivable. I hope to be able to show that it was entirely unnecessary.
Although a waiver may have been obtained for it under Article VIII of the International Monetary Fund Agreement, it is clearly against the spirit of that agreement. Even the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the present Home Secretary, seemed a little aware of this when, in answer to a challenge in January, 1966, from my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) as to whether he intended to impose new restrictions on the travel allowance, he replied:
The silly season has arrived rather early this year. Let me say at once—in order that Mr. Maudling may sleep soundly in his bed tonight—that I have no plans to cut the the travel allowance.
Six, months late, he did—not untypical of the Government. He cut the allowance to £50.
This was derisory enough, but devaluation has made it even more so. Its retention for so long is a serious indictment, although now only one of a lengthening list of this Government's economic mismanagement's of our affairs, and it is altogether a shameful business that the Government of a great country like ours should impose it at all.
We are, more than most, a great trading nation, dependent for our standard of living and for our very lives upon countries outside our borders and upon the confidence of the inhabitants of those countries in us and in our economic management. Quite rightly,

the Government are constantly urging upon our businessmen and industrialists the need to export more. All the time we hear the cry go up. We are pressed to get up and go abroad to sell our manufactures and the important part of this effort and this educative process—it is educative, since many millions of people in this country do not naturally tend to go abroad—is to visit other countries and peoples.
I do not mean just on business, but also on holiday and on extended sabbatical leave, because many executives of big firms would like to combine business and pleasure and go abroad to learn the ways of others, to study their customs and their needs, their likes and dislikes, to get to know them and for them to get to know us. Otherwise, confidence does not grow.
When I say this, I do not just mean all the package tours along the well-worn beaten tracks with gaggles of their own countrymen—

Mr. Heffer: What rubbish!

Mr. Peel: —and little contact with the people of the countries visited, although these are not unimportant. They have their uses from the point of view not only of holidays, but of cultural contacts as well, but in a limited way and to a limited extent.

Mr. Heffer: Oh.

Mr. Peel: If the hon. Member wishes to interrupt, I am ready to give way. I am tired of listening to him interrupting from his seat.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is always best to intervene in a Parliamentary way.

Mr. Heffer: It is obvious that the hon Member for Leicester, South-East (Mr. Peel) does not like anyone making any comments at all. I am prepared not to make any further comments during his speech. I will make them if I am called in the debate. I had no intention of speaking, but after hearing this tripe I feel that I must say something.

Mr. Peel: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene in the right way. I am only too delighted to have him intervene. I have no objection to his doing so, but I wish that he would do it in the proper manner, because it is


slightly easier to answer him if he does, quite apart from it being slightly better mannered.

Captain Walter Elliot: He has not got any.

Mr. Peel: What I think is important is that the people of our country should have the freedom to move along lesser known ways, some of the byeways of other countries, to come into closer contact with their peoples and to see and learn and communicate with them and to study their art and their culture.
The Government are, quite rightly, working for an increasingly united Europe, despite some of their hon. Friends below the Gangway, and they are not having an easy passage. But sometimes we have only ourselves to blame for many of our difficulties. I meet lots of our Continental friends through the Council of Europe and the Assembly of Western European Union and many are understandably suspicious of our insular attitude and sense that there is a strong reluctance on our part to regard ourselves as genuinely part and parcel of Europe. The restriction on the travel allowance tends to increase their suspicion and deprive us of many more opportunities for dissipating them.
The Government may and do say that there are plenty of opportunities for holidaying abroad within the sterling area, but Europe is not within the sterling area and the Government keep saying that we are good Europeans. I ask that we prove it. Furthermore, I believe that there are many parts of the sterling area where sterling is not necessarily saved and where, in one way or another, it is converted into foreign exchange. Such places are those which lie at the crossroads of the sterling and dollar areas, like the West Indies, Bermuda and the Bahamas, and other places like Hong Kong and Australia.
These are some of the general reasons why I consider the travel limit to be bad. I want now to look at some of the more specific objections to it.
First, a paltry sum like this is positively demeaning for a country like Britain. Foreigners tend to regard it as quite despicable and contrary to the whole spirit of trade liberalisation. They

tend to pity us like poor relations and feel that perhaps they should try and make special terms for us or give us special hospitality or make special allowances. In some instances they do not particularly care whether we go to their hotels or not, because they know that we have to be careful when it comes to giving tips and other rewards.
The whole process involved in getting foreign exchange is tiresome, takes time, is frustrating and costs money. Those whose duties or businesses take them abroad fairly frequently may well be caught by the legal obligation to sell back their foreign currency and exchange allowances within a month of their return to this country, and quite soon thereafter may have to go abroad again, which entails more time and further expense in acquiring fresh foreign exchange. So the tedious process goes on, tedious for all concerned, bankers, travel agents and travellers.
Like all bad laws, especially those that restrict our freedom, this will have many legitimate ways of getting round it, of being avoided. I am sure that many people find those ways. I have no doubt that the Minister of State can tell me of many himself. It is not a particularly easy or dignified law to enforce.
Frankly, I find it difficult to believe that the removal of this pettifogging restriction would make all that difference to our balance of payments. Some time ago, we heard that the Government thought that it might save £50 million, but then it appeared that it was saving no more than £25 million. Compared with the amount of foreign exchange which the Government themselves spend abroad, those are small figures. I understand that the average Briton abroad seldom spends more than £40 to £45. If that is so, it is pointless to have a restriction which is meaningless to the majority of holiday makers.
Like so many restrictions, it is full of anomalies. We allow individuals, after they have paid their lawful taxes, to spend as they like—and it amounts to considerable sums of money—on expensive foreign goods, on foreign luxuries—perhaps £8,000 or £9,000 on a foreign car—on dresses, tobacco, drinks and many other items. But they are allowed to spend only £50 on travel in the countries from which these things come and


to meet the people who come from those countries.
I understand, too, that people may obtain £150 to go abroad to watch a football match, but that if they want to take a healthy holiday ski-ing in the winter, they may have to pay as much as £2 10s. or more a day for ski-lifts for which they can obtain no extra allowance. No doubt in many ways it is noble to watch a football match, but it is better for our people to take healthy exercise, so why should there be this distinction? This should be considered. I understand that it affects about 40,000 people a year. If they have to pay £2 10s. or more a day for ski-lifts, they will find it difficult to spend 10 days or a fortnight abroad on £50. In these ways we have our priorities all wrong.
If it is necessary to reduce expenditure on foreign travel, in a free country it should be done in some other way, for example, by taxing expenditure on such travel. That is more appropriate to a free country than putting a bar on the travel allowance. The Americans considered this and rightly discarded it.
In paragraph 11 of the recent Letter of Intent to the International Monetary Fund, the Chancellor said that he would abolish this restriction as soon as the balance of payments allowed. Surely that has always been the case. There could not possibly be any reason for having it if the balance of payments were right. But what did that mean? Will it be as soon as we have a surplus, however small, or only when we have a large surplus? Is the Chancellor thinking in terms of a surplus now of £300 million, down to which he has come after talking to the because no doubt we shall whistle for that as long as we whistled for the £500 million? That is not good enough.
I have tried to show that we should not have this kind of restriction in a free country in peace time, let alone in a country which, like Great Britain, depends upon its foreign contacts, upon foreign confidence and upon knowledge of other lands, and I beg the Government to get rid of it now.

4.26 p.m.

Dr. David Kerr: I suppose that it is inevitable that a subject like this should have a summer

garden air about it. Even your attempts to call the House to order, Mr. Speaker, smacked pleasurably of the noise of a bee buzzing in one's ears more than your usual rather disciplinary bringing of the House to order.
I cannot help feeling that our ennui, if that is a permissible word in HANSARD, was fed by the deliberations, and I use the word advisedly, of the hon. Member for Leicester, South-East (Mr. Peel). This subject is a veritable fool's bladder with which to hit the Government. What a trivial little Motion the hon. Gentleman has chosen! On the one occasion when, as he has so proudly told us, he was selected out of the hat, with matters of great pith and moment surrounding us, he has chosen to attack—that is not the right word to describe his speech, but it is the one which comes most readily—the Government's record on foreign travel allowances.
The hon. Member was guilty of some extraordinarly lapses from normal logic. We are accustomed to odd processes from hon. Members opposite, but he cited the average Englishman spending only £45 per head while abroad as a justification for increasing the allowance still further. That seems to be lacking even the sort of common sense which we have the right to expect from Her Majesty's Opposition.

Mr. Peel: If the hon. Gentleman himself is so good at logic, he must know that the average man does not represent every man in Britain, thank goodness.

Dr. Kerr: For the sake of the hon. Member's own protection, I dare not give way to him again. That was even jucier than the last.
The hon. Member made some rather palsied references to the way in which the £50 travel allowance fails to work and he made many ambitious, inaccurate and misleading references to the way in which Britain had been a travelling country, quite overlooking the fact that it is only since the war that foreign travel has been extended to the great mass of the people in this country, thanks to the cheapening of communications. Moreover, it strikes me as a little—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are getting a little Continental.

Dr. Kerr: I was saying that it strikes me as a little naive that an Opposition


Member should blankly ignore the interests of our own tourist trade. There has been such a fight about the Develepoment of Tourism Bill that one would have thought that a Member choosing this subject might at least have paid some lip-service to a desire to promote the interests of the British seaside resorts, the British hotel interests and certain other interests to which I shall refer.
To suggest that we have always been a nation of seafaring travellers since time immemorial, is a load of nonsense. We are a nation which has certainly developed foreign travel for the purposes of colonisation, for exploitation of the native people whom we went to visit, and whose culture we went to study. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Even the history books of hon. Gentlemen opposite could scarcely have taught them otherwise, if they had spared the time from slamming the Government, to study them. This has been the story of British travel, of British naval travel and military expeditions—not of great mass excursions to the fried fish and chip shop on the Costa Brava, which is what we are now witnessing as part of our mass communications.
We have to look at the purposes of foreign travel. The hon. Member waxed loud and enthusiastic about the sabbatical year taken by directors of large enterprises to study the language and modes of living and business opportunities, and so on. He failed to point out that many a director is fortunate enough to be able to be accompanied by his wife, for the purposes of the trip attached to the company's payroll as his secretary. For such trips as these there is often considerable generosity on the part of the Treasury, and a lot more than £50 per head in travel allowance is obtained.
When it comes to most of the other exceptions, non-holiday exceptions, I would like to assure the hon. Gentleman that the opportunities for legal extensions of the £50 sum are enormous and are seized with an enthusiasm which corresponds to the resources of the person so seizing them. That does not include most of the people of this side of the House, nor those we seek to represent.
Those who do enjoy very large travel allowances are those who have resources to match and can go to their doctor and

get a certificate to say that they need a prolonged spell of convalescence in Nice, or Dubrovnik, or Sochi, or the other centres of capitalist tourist exploitation. Let me assure the hon. Gentleman, and any of his colleagues who feel that they are in need of treatment for alcoholism, bad liver or senility, that I would gladly extend to them my own professional courtesies and assist them to obtain this extension.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Is this not the very reason why the £50 restriction should be removed, because there are so many people getting the advantages? Why should there be only a limited number of people so restricted?

Dr. Kerr: The hon. Gentleman has rather spoiled by peroration, but that was not the argument put forward by his hon. Friend, who said that he was now feeling the spur of charity, that other countries were bending to make sure that he and his colleagues would not be deprived of the services of the Black Eagle, or the hotels in Nice and that they were having to adopt a more charitable, and, therefore, unacceptable attitude, which made it difficult for him and his colleagues to accept this allowance with equanimity.
There are certain divergencies of view on the other side about what the allowance is about. I want to make a plea for the allowance, first and foremost on behalf of the British holiday resorts. It is, alas, a fact that whatever may be said from the other side, the figures do not suggest that foreign travel has diminished significantly as a result of this measure. It has done something similar to the prices and incomes policy, it has made people think a little. If it discourages them from going to a country like Spain or Greece, then the £50 allowance would be justified for that reason alone.
Unfortunately, it also discourages people from visiting friendly, responsible and democratic countries where we should like to see them go. But they go there, and there seems to be very little restriction of the growth of package holidays abroad, save for the very unfortunate and in my view unacceptable regulations of I.A.T.A. There is now a case for looking at this country's sense


of responsibility to I.A.T.A. and the way in which these regulations benefit the very large airlines to the detriment of airlines operating in countries like our own. We could considerably increase our opportunities for cheap travel within the £50 allowance. This is something at which we might take another look.
I am sorry that with all of his sweeping imagination the hon. Member devoted to his speech he failed to make one important point. As he says, the average man in Britain is not the average man in Britain. What he is saying is that there is a wide range, that the problem of the individual travelling abroad alone is not the same as the family man going with three children. For most family men the opportunity to take £250 plus the fare is more than he needs or can afford. For the individual there may be a good case for looking more sympathetically at this problem. I would like to ask my right hon. Friend whether any thought has been given to a sliding scale allowance whereby it would be possible to give a group or family going abroad slightly less per head and to allow those travelling abroad as individuals slightly more. Could we not, for instance, say that a man going abroad with five children should have his £45 a head, which he will not spend, to allow the individual, or the man and wife travelling solus to have £55 a head?
This seems to be a reasonable way of recognising the different degree of expenditure faced by these two different groups, and the hon. Member has lost opportunity to recognise these difficulties. I make good his omission.
I also want to make a plea for the advantages of camping. My right hon. Friend could do a good deal to keep people here if he recognised the quite extraordinary growth of camping, not only here but on the Continent. Not only is there a tremendous growth of this outdoor activity here, but the way in which people in Holland and Germany flock south to lavishly equipped camping sites in Italy, Yugoslavia and the South of France makes the movements of swallows look ridiculous by comparison.
Why are we not grabbing a large part of that market here? If there is an argument for encouraging people to stay at home rather than travelling widely

abroad, let us do more than we are to ensure that camping enthusiasts here are well catered for. The capital necessary to compete with other interests, on which there may be a higher return, might be provided by municipalities rather than private camping interests. This is one way of justifying an allowance which we recognise is a nominal feature.
It would perhaps be improper to go in to all the ways of avoiding this allowance illegally. It must be common knowledge that the right to take out sterling to the amount of £15 is flouted to an extraordinary degree, which no sort of intelligent control at our points of exit could ever hope to restore to what we want it to be.
Perhaps there is an argument for looking soon, as we have undertaken to do, at this restriction, but I do discount all this blather and nonsense about restriction of freedom. The facts are that there are more people travelling abroad, and people are able to do so within the allowance. If there is any disadvantage it is to those travelling individually or in couples, and there might be an exemption given in such cases. I can only hope that in looking at this aspect of travel by Britons abroad we will not lose sight of the importance of assisting travel by foreigners into Britain.
This involves foreign expenditure of a different sort, and, in view of the opportunities which arise particularly for young people in Continental countries to come here, I urge the Government to adopt a very generous attitude towards this kind of operation.
I discovered an argument in Berlin last year in favour of a restricted travel allowance. In company with one or two hon. Members opposite, I found myself touring Berlin in the vain hope of discovering some night life. At one point we found ourselves in a near-beer bar. There were three very attractive young ladies who offered us a variety of facilities, some of which were on the menu and others which even my scanty knowledge of German led me to believe could not have been printed on the menu. We then noticed that whisky was priced at £15 a bottle. It was with great relief that we were able to claim that the restricted travel allowance did not allow


us to stay in that place one moment longer.

4.42 p.m.

Sir Charles Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East (Mr. Peel) for raising this matter, because it is very important.
The hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr) talked a great deal of nonsense. He seems to want a travel allowance graduated according to party loyalties. All that he seems to want are controls and more controls, which I do not want. During his speech I wondered whether even in the House of Commons he was allowed to advertise the fact that he was a doctor, whether it was permitted by the General Medical Council and whether he could arrange for people who were ill to get a good travel allowance. Perhaps he will have a queue of patients tomorrow wanting to go abroad. I should not have thought that the General Medical Council would think very highly of that.
I represent a British seaside resort, but I do not believe in forcing people to go to British seaside resorts for their holidays. They should encourage people to go to them because of their amenities. About six weeks ago I attended in Dublin an international conference of hotel keepers. Over 70 nations were represented at it. The hotel keepers unanimously decided to send a resolution to the United Nations stating that they hoped that 1970 would be declared the year of freedom for travel. They were not considering their own seaside resorts, towns and cities. They believed that freedom of travel was necessary in this modern world and that it was one of the rights of human beings that they should be able to travel throughout the world if they wished.

Dr. David Kerr: Would the hon. Gentleman make plain to me and perhaps to some of my colleagues whether that resolution referred to restriction on financial expenditure or to the kind of imprisonment which is occurring in Greece and Spain and other countries with tyrannical Governments who were not allowing foreign travel?

Sir C. Taylor: The resolution referred to all these things. It also referred to imprisonment behind the Iron Curtain.

Freedom of travel means not only the people are allowed to spend their own money in travelling, if they have any, but that they should be free to go to other countries provided they behave themselves and act in accordance with the rules and laws of them.
At a meeting in Germany two or three years ago I was talking with some of my German hotel friends who said that they had given up exhibiting British Travel Association posters because British people had only a £50 travel allowance. Travel arrangements must be reciprocal and, therefore, they were putting up posters urging people to go to France, Switzerland and Austria where there was no travel restriction. The £50 travel allowance for British people is doing us harm, because travel must be reciprocal. If others countries know that the British traveller will be allowed to take abroad only £50 a year, why should they advertise the "Come to Britain" campaign, which has been done so well by the British Travel Association?
I should like to ask the Minister whether this travel allowance is contrary to the Bretton Woods Agreement. I believe that it is. Has the International Monetary Fund said to us, "You must stop this nonsense about not allowing your people more than £50 as a travel allowance"?
The Government are making us appear paupers in the world. It is unpleasant for English people, having contributed very largely to winning the last war, to appear to be paupers when they travel round the world. Let me give one example of the narrow-mindedness of the Treasury. Members of the British Parliament paid a visit to Switzerland in January. Those Members who could ski were asked to ski against members of the Swiss Parliament.
For many years the Swiss Members of Parliament have entertained their British counterparts at a small good will get-together. I understand that the members of the British Parliamentary team applied to the Treasury for a small grant to entertain, for a change, our Swiss colleagues. It was turned down. This is absolutely outrageous. The Treasury said, "This is a jolly" It was not a jolly; it was a good will visit. We got to know our Swiss colleagues very well, which is very helpful in this difficult world, but we were


not allowed even a few pounds to give them a little hospitality in return for the hospitality which they had given us over the years.
It is no wonder, when that sort of thing happens, that there is no confidence in our country or in the continuance of the value of the £. In other countries we are made to appear paupers. When we go abroad, we are made to feel as though we are criminals because we want to take some of our money abroad.
When we had sweet rationing in the days of the Socialist Government after rile war—and, of course, during the war—everybody said, "I am entitled to this ration of sweets and, therefore, I shall buy it". Everyone bought his or her ration of sweets. When sweet rationing was done away with by the Conservative Government, however, the consumption of sweets fell. I suggest that although, before we had the rationing of money, many people who wanted to go abroad spent only £35 or £40, they now insist on their ration of £50.
I know this to be a fact. It is only penalising the so-called rich, who, at their own expense, may be going out to pay good will visits here and there or whatever else they do. It does not matter what they are doing. They should have freedom to travel. I believe firmly that if the Government did away with this silly restriction, it would cost us no more in foreign currency.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East for raising this matter. It is one of great consequence. I hope that the United Nations will make 1970 a year of freedom to travel for all nations.

4.53 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I had no intention of participating in this debate. I wanted to hear what was said, because I have some sympathy with the idea of raising the limit and ultimately abolishing it. I thought that we would have a rational debate on those lines. Then, however, I heard what I would regard—and I am sure that most of my hon. Friends would agree with this—as amazing statements from the hon. Member for Leicester, South-East (Mr. Peel), who initiated the debate.
The hon. Member talked about its being a badge of dictatorship to have

a travel allowance of £50 and said that the greatest freedom we had was the freedom to travel. I intervened to point out to the hon. Member that there were millions of people in this country who, during periods of depression and unemployment, and even during periods of full employment, never earned enough to travel to the next town, never mind to travel all over the world. I have never found it a great embarrassment to have a travel allowance of £50, neither do the overwhelming mass of people.
We were told when the £50 travel allowance was introduced that it would mean a great restriction on our people going abroad and meeting the French, the Italians, the Spaniards, and so on. The fact is that just as many go now as ever went before. [HON. MEMBERS: "How does the hon. Member know?"] Because the figures prove it.

Mr. John Hay: But how ninny more would like to go?

Mr. Heffer: Hon. Members opposite are talking about a small minority of people—their friends, the ones whom the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) was honest enough to bring out in the end, the few rich, who naturally feel restricted and upset that they can have a travel allowance of only £50.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Absolute nonsense.

Mr. Heffer: We are told that they feel like paupers—of course, they have larger sums of money—unless they participate, as we were told, in the many ways in which they can get round the law. Perhaps they have money abroad anyway and they draw—

Sir C. Taylor: It was the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr) who said that.

Mr. Heffer: The hon. Member for Eastbourne also said it. I listened carefully to him. That is the truth of it.
Hon. Members opposite are raising the question of the £50 allowance because it is their friends, the small minority, who are upset about feeling that they are paupers when they go abroad. The overwhelming mass of people have not been writing to hon. Members, passing resolutions at union branch meetings or holding demonstrations at Westminster to demand


the lifting of the £50 allowance. I have seen many other demonstrations on all sorts of issues, but not on this one, because the average working man or woman who goes on holiday abroad finds that the allowance is sufficient to meet his or her needs. It may be that they would like a little more, but it is not those people who talk about the badge of dictatorship.

Sir C. Taylor: Government by restriction.

Mr. Heffer: The hon. Member talks about restriction. My people have been restricted for generation after generation. For the first time in their lives, some of them are going abroad and enjoying things which they have never enjoyed before. They are doing it at this moment.
I will tell hon. Members opposite how the ordinary working man went abroad in the old days. He did it the way my father went abroad, as a soldier. He went to India and Burma as a soldier. He would never have been able to secure sufficient money to travel in those countries. He went as part of the Armed Forces. That was how the average working man went abroad. Or he went as a seaman. He did not travel the world enjoying the sights and the luxurious nightlife that my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr) found in Berlin. He went not on the basis of his own money, but as part and parcel of the Armed Forces or as a seaman. The hon. Member for Eastbourne is talking about the minority of people.
I accept that there is a case for lifting the limit. [HON. MEMBERS: "Here we go."] But the hon. Member for Eastbourne was not asking for that. He said that it should be abolished. Then he spoke about the overwhelming mass of people, the average person, whom he dismissed in a way which, I thought, was cavalier and disgusting, because he was talking about his snobby friends. They are not my friends, because my friends are not complaining.
Then we were told that the Tories got rid of this restriction. They got rid of it in 1959. They came to office in 1951. It took them eight years to get rid of it. They had to keep the restriction for a period because of the economic circumstances.
We ought to have serious debates in the House. If hon. Members opposite want a debate of importance, they could have had a debate on something on which the hon. Member for Leicester, South-East touched in passing and on which I, like him, feel passionately—the concept of building a united Europe.

Mr. Hay: On £50?

Mr. Heffer: The hon. Member is being utterly stupid—

Mr. Hay: Thank you very much.

Mr. Heffer: —absolutely stupid, because if the hon. Member thinks that the restriction to £50 is any way stopping the concept of a united Europe, then he lives in a world entirely different from the one I live in.
When we argue about a united Europe we argue about important political and economic implications and difficulties we have to overcome. That is a very important debate, which we could have had. We could have seriously considered the whole question of the new situation arising out of the new French Government; and we could have considered the possibilities of a further approach in relation to the Common Market as a first step towards a united Europe. But no, the hon. Member was not prepared to have a serious debate on this question. He just wanted one more little stick with which to try to beat the Labour Government. That is all he wanted. This debate is sheer political propaganda, and he and his hon. Friends know it.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I am interested in the accusation which the hon. Member has made against my hon. Friend. He said a few minutes ago that the only reason for the introduction of this debate was that a few of our very wealthy friends felt themselves restricted, but now he is saying that this is a great exercise in political propaganda. He really must make up his mind which it is.

Mr. Heffer: Hon. Members opposite have been speaking on behalf of their friends outside the House and whipping up their feelings. That is all that this debate has been for. There is no serious motive behind it at all. Hon. Members opposite all know that there is no serious motive behind it. I have never heard so


fiddling and ridiculous a Motion in all my life. I hope that hon. Members will not have this Motion put to the vote; I hope that they will not be so silly; but if they are I hope that the House will have sufficient sense and intelligence overwhelmingly to reject it.

5.1 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: We have had from the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) the accusation that this debate is, on the one hand, unimportant, and, on the other hand, that it is stupid. All I can say is that, however unimportant or stupid it may appear to them to be, between now and the General Election—even if there is not an announcement from that Box today—there will be no £50 restriction on currency for people going abroad, and the hon. Member for Walton knows that if this announcement is made by the Government it will be to help him and his hon. Friends to help the Government to get more votes.
However, this is a serious subject. This restriction has been on a very long time now and there are many good reasons why it should come off. The fact that the Government have hinted that it may come off or be lightened is a credit to my hon. Friend. We did not hear any such hint until the Motion had been put down on the Paper, and so at least my hon. Friend has had an effect in jogging the Government's memory on the subject and making Ministers concern themselves with what is likely to happen next year. I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he will give an indication in good time so that the tour companies can organise themselves on the basis of an increase in the allowance next year.
I suppose that, like the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central, who is issuing certificates to all sorts of people so that they can go to the South of France to improve their gout situation, or whatever it may be, I, too, must declare an interest. I have a travel organisation, but I am not involved in tours.
However, what this £50 is doing is to turn us into a nation of international trippers, because most people now, if they want to go abroad, have to go on a package tour, whether they like it or not.

A large number of people, not only middle-class or rich people, but also ordinary chaps working in the docks in Liverpool, like to think that they can go abroad by themselves. They like to book in at an hotel, and not to have to take part in a package tour with a lot of other people, perhaps people whom they see day by day. They do not want to go on holiday and meet the people they meet five days a week. They want to meet other people. They cannot do this because the £50 does not stretch to meeting the individual room charges of hoteliers compared with the charges hoteliers provide for people booking in groups of 30 or 40. Removing the restriction would give a little more freedom to people when they go abroad who would like to go abroad as individuals rather than en masse.
The Minister will probably say that the whole exercise has been justified because the balance on currency now available to us is in our favour. I accept this. It is coming into our favour. But I would say that if the restriction has a little to do with it, it does not have everything to do with it, as the Minister well knows. In case he does not spell out the different things which have helped to give us this balance, I will do so.
First of all, as he knows, devaluation has helped to give us this balance, because people going abroad from this country are not spending so much. Devaluation is against them. Their money does not go so far. People coming into this country from abroad, however, are at a great advantage, and this has brought a large number of visitors into England. We are cheap. We are. perhaps now second only to Spain and Portugal and some other countries whither, as the House knows, British people go because, they say, "There we can have the sun and things are cheap" Now people are coming here because we are getting the sun and because things here are cheap. They are coming in droves from France, going to Marks and Spencer's and buying goods at prices which we think are expensive but which, for them, are at low prices. This is all because the Government have devalued the £, and the £ is now, to them, an advantage currency, not as high in rating as the dollar or the mark. So more money is coming into this country, and this


helps us with foreign currency. It would be a disastrous situation if after devaluation we had not gained an advantage of this kind.
More over, there has been a natural growth in world travel, ever since the £50 restriction was introduced three years ago. Year by year, international travel has increased. It is not only people travelling from this country abroad but people travelling here from Europe and from America and from even farther away—people coming from Commonwealth countries to see the Mother Country. This will continue. This is the second advantage to us, the natural growth in travel, which has helped our currency advantage.
Then we have an increase in hotel accommodation available. Even prior to the Development of Tourism Bill, introduced by the Government, there had been in London considerable increases in hotel accommodation, and this has helped to make it easier for people to come and stay here.
Another reason why we should now get rid of the £50 restriction is that the restriction is really a bad thing for our prestige abroad. If we want to exude confidence—and part of our trouble arises from the fact that the Government have not been able to get the balance of payments right because there is a lack of confidence—restricting currency is not really a good way of doing it. To make ourselves about the only country in Europe where the people are restricted in what they can spend when they go abroad, so that they cannot afford this or they cannot afford that, perhaps even the most modest gifts, is wholly bad.
I was challenged about this when I mentioned it in Committee on the Development of Tourism Bill the other day, but it must not be underrated. There are charter companies having to shop around abroad and squeeze foreign hoteliers right down to the last cent. Foreign hoteliers know about this restriction, and they reduce their prices for parties as much as they can. Because of the £50 limit our companies have to get prices down to the rock bottom, and the foreign hoteliers know that. They know that if they do not concede on pricing they will not get the bookings.

They equally know that this has nothing to do with the tour companies; it has to do with the restriction imposed on them because of the Government's currency restriction. There should be open bargaining between the tour companies and hotels overseas. I am all in favour of the tour companies getting the best bargain, but it should not be a bargain on the basis of forcing the hotels to concede the lowest possible prices because of the currency restriction.

Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman is putting up a much better case than did the hon. Member for Leicester, South-East (Mr. Peel); at least it is a serious case. But, surely, on the basis of his argument, if the tour companies are doing this, then our people are getting a very good bargain?

Mr. Lewis: Yes, I accept that they are getting a good bargain, but this can be conducive to bad relations between the tourist industry in this country and the tourist industry abroad. This is two-way traffic and good relations should exist, but they cannot so long as this restriction continues. Hoteliers abroad understood that the restriction would continue for a year or so; they certainly did not expect it to continue for three years.

Mr. Victor Goodhew: Will not my hon. Friend agree that the hoteliers abroad who are squeezed down to a low figure are bound to lower the standard of food served to British tourists and that this is a bad bargain for the tourist?

Mr. Lewis: This is absolutely true. People going abroad on package tours are often served a course light, or the food is not of the best Continental standard because the hoteliers are unable to provide it within the restricted amount.
I have accepted that in the beginning there might have been a case for this restriction, but it is a bad restriction if it continues for too long. It results in many side-effects. It discourages air travel, except package tour air travel. There is no reason why I should plead this, but it has a bad effect on the passenger-carrying possibilities of the nationalised airlines since it restricts the number of people who can go on scheduled flights. It pushes people on to charter flights and also into their motor cars. By taking a


motor car abroad people are able to get another £25, and this is an additional advantage.
The longer the restriction goes on, the more people will learn how to get round the regulations. There cannot now be many people who do not know that they can go to a doctor if they have had 'flu and say that they need a holiday to recuperate. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central is no longer here. I know of a doctor in practice who has bought an interest in a travel business. People can go to his surgery and get from him a certificate and a prescription for which they have to pay 2s. 6d., but when they reach the recuperation stage the doctor can tell them to take a holiday and send them down below to the travel business, and so he wins in every direction. This has, of course, a humorous side but it happens to be true.
The longer this restriction is continued the more opportunities there will be for people to get round it. The Minister knows that business men can get a considerable allowance, but not for a holiday. He will understand, however, that it is possible for a business man to go abroad on a business trip and tag on his holiday at the end. This is perfectly legal. He is entitled to do this and he will get the business currency advantage to help him to have a better holiday.
I turn now to Provision 1 which is related to package holidays and to the £50 allowance. I had a Ten-Minute Rule Bill down for Wednesday which I have withdrawn because I thought it would be better to raise the subject now than waste the time of the House on Wednesday.
The Tour Operators Study Group, which is representative of all the tour companies and package tour companies in the country, has made representations to the President of the Board of Trade to look at the impact of Provision 1 in so far as it restricts upwards the price of package holidays. The President of the Board of Trade made a statement in which he said that he would make certain concessions in the winter period, but the Edwards Committee Report on British air travel in the 70s went a good deal further than this.
The British Tour Operators Study Group, having looked at the Edwards Report, has now stated its own view. I know that the package tour companies would like the Minister to go a long way towards removing the restrictions. It must be recognised, as the Edwards Report stated, that a free-for-all cannot be allowed. Package tour companies cannot suddenly be told that thy can charge what they like on any route they like. That would be accepting that there was no case for scheduled fares, and there is a case for scheduled fares in certain circumstances.
The nationalised air companies are contemplating entering into charter operations. I hope that the Minister will make an early announcement about this whole matter, not necessarily today but in time for the 1970 programme, so that the package tour companies know where they stand. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will look at the routes which have been put to him and the proposed reductions of fares and make an early announcement.
Will the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind the possibility of a certain amount of horse-trading? Since the scheduled companies wish to go into package tour operations, if the Minister restricts the package companies he should be prepared also to maintain restrictions upon the scheduled companies operating package tours, or he can lift restrictions on the package companies. It would be quite improper for him to allow a benefit to one and refuse the other.
Paragraph 704 of the Edwards Report states:
The past policy of the British Government towards inclusive tours has been to take a liberal attitude towards their development but to endeavour to ensure that its charges did not undermine the fares for scheduled services on the same routes.
The Minister, the House and the country should know that the great expansion in cheap overseas travel has been made possible through the efforts of free enterprise, not in the main through the efforts of the nationalised airlines. It has been made possible because certain people were pioneers and have developed travel abroad to such an extent that extraordinarily good bargains are now available and people can have holidays abroad almost as cheaply as holidays at home Nothing should be done to restrict this


We have seen this development in Europe and in countries near to these islands. We now have an opportunity to expand this further afield. Today Questions have been put to the Minister of Overseas Development and he has been pressed to increase grants to underdeveloped countries. The best way to help these countries is to expand tourism so that more and more British people go abroad, to the Middle East, Asia and Africa. So far as our people go and spend money there, we are taking money to them which they can re-spend here and so purchase things they want. The best way to do this is to encourage package companies by taking off some of the restrictions on the far flung routes. This offers new development which might take another five to 10 years, but when it comes to fruition it will provide the opportunity of tourist development which will be to our advantage as well as to the advantage of these other countries. It will provide an exchange of peoples and a subsequent exchange of goods.
This has been a useful debate and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East (Mr. Peel) for giving us the opportunity to raise this subject. I hope that the Minister will really say something this afternoon and will not, once again, be putting off a decision. I hope he will indicate the way the Government's mind is working upon this matter. If the limit is kept on too long, it must be understood that when eventually the Government take it off it will be regarded as a piece of pure electioneering. It ought to be taken off now. The sooner the better.

5.21 p.m.

Mr. Edward Milne: The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) has been fortunate in this debate in that he has managed to roll three speeches into one. He has dealt with the subject of the Motion on the Order Paper, the abolition of the £50 holiday allowance; he has managed to bring in the Edwards Committee's Report and has given us an advance speech on that; and he has also been able to make some free time on Wednesday by withdrawing his Private Member's Bill on charter flying and package foreign travel. We are grateful to the hon. Member for bringing some realism to bear upon this

subject. He will realise when he reads his speech tomorrow that he has taken up the Government's case.
The hon. Member made two interesting observations. He said that he agreed with the limit when it was introduced, but he felt that the time was now approaching for it to be removed. Whether that time has now come, or whether the £50 limit needs to be raised, is a litle uncertain at the moment. But there are one or two categories of persons in this country whom the Government should consider in relation to raising the limit. At the moment people over 70 are given an extra allowance. But there is no reason why retired people below the age of 70 should not also be given the extra allowance. A considerable number of people who intend to travel abroad when they retire would welcome an increase in the allowance. Some changes could be made even within the framework of the existing arrangements.
The hon. Member for Leicester, South-East (Mr. Peel), in opening the debate, talked about skiing holidays, as did the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor). He said that those who wished to take more than one holiday were being held back by the £50 restriction. I should like hon. Members opposite to look at the matter of the restriction of individuals' freedom, which was a theme that ran through most of their speeches in relation to holidays. In terms of the holiday agreements which operate in so many trades in this country, even with an increased holiday allowance it would be impossible for the vast bulk of wage earners in this country to take the double holiday to which the hon. Member referred. Therefore, if they are keen and sincere—and it is all very well for the hon. Member for Eastbourne to shake his head—

Sir C. Taylor: rose—

Mr. Milne: Will the hon. Gentleman wait a moment? I want to develop the point he made.

Sir C. Taylor: I did not make that point. Will the hon. Gentleman allow me?

Mr. Milne: No.

Sir C. Taylor: The hon. Member referred to me. Will he not allow me to answer?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. Gentleman is not giving way.

Mr. Milne: I will deal with this matter in my own way, without any assistance from the hon. Member for Eastbourne. If he says that he did not make that point, then I will leave it entirely alone.

Sir C. Taylor: Thank you.

Mr. Milne: But when the hon. Member reads HANSARD tomorrow he will possibly be more in agreement with me than he is now.

Sir C. Taylor: No.

Mr. Milne: Without referring to whoever said it or did not say it—

Sir C. Taylor: The hon. Member should get his facts right.

Mr. Milne: There is no harm in some of us getting our facts right. We have not had many good examples of getting facts right from the other side, particularly from the hon. Member for Eastbourne. Therefore, he need not shout about getting facts rights right. I will make my speech in my own way without any assistance from him. The point has been made in this debate, in regard to the restriction on the £50 limit, that persons who want to have a double holiday are restricted.

Sir C. Taylor: On a point of order. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne) to impute both to my hon. Friend and to myself things that we have never said and then to shout us down. This is outrageous.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Milne: The hon. Member for Eastbourne has described this as outrageous. I have made it quite clear that if the hon. Members concerned assure us that they did not make those points, I would merely make the point in the debate. Certainly many people have argued that the £50 restriction prevents people from having an extra holiday abroad.
The point that I make is that, if hon. Members opposite are really concerned with personal freedom, the holiday agreements which exist in the majority of

trades and professions in this country prevent people from having a double holiday in the course of the year. A general move towards the extension of holidays, as well as an extension of the travel limit itself, would be helpful. This is the only point I make in this respect.
Nobody has yet made the point that the £50 limit is not the maximum. There is the £25 car allowance, and in addition to the £50 there is also the £15 allowance, which can be taken out by a traveller on every occasion he leaves the country. It is an extra entitlement in terms of currency.

Mr. Peel: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman very carefully. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was here when the debate opened, but I assure him that I have been present the whole time and I have heard nobody talk about double holidays. Now that more and more holidays and longer holidays are becoming available, there is no need to take a double holiday in order to require more than the restricted allowance. If lion. Gentlemen opposite claim that only a few rich people want more than the £50 limit, why have it at all because the effect on our exchange must be minimal? The hon. Member has the matter quite wrong. One does not need to bring in the argument about the double holiday to justify the removal of this restriction on our freedom.

Mr. Milne: Although the hon. Member has taken advantage of my giving way in this debate, he has not in his intervention dealt with the points I was making. As for my being here at the outset, I confess that I missed the first five minutes of the debate. I was at the Board of Trade with representatives of firms in my constituency. The hon. Gentleman will understand that I followed most of the remarks that he made about his speech, so that there was no need to make that spurious intervention in order to demonstrate that an hon. Member was not present to hear him open the debate. I was absent for only five minutes of his speech. Whether I regret that or not is another matter.
Coming back to the £50 allowance, a number of factors have to be looked at when considering the arguments raised during the debate. The £50 restriction has not proved to be a limitation on the expansion of the holiday trade. It is


true that the bargaining with overseas hoteliers, coach-owners and others has contributed to the expansion, and I agree with the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford that those in the travel business have done an outstanding job in providing holidays of this description. However, when hon. Members opposite argue that the £50 limit is not sufficient to enable people to have holidays abroad, which is flying in the face of the figures with which we have been provided over the past three years, it is quite illogical at the same time to argue that people spend more money as a result of the £50 limit. After all, the average price of a holiday abroad is between £44 and £45 per person, depending on the country visited. Many of us who have been abroad have seen people lining up on ferries and at airports to spend the remaining few pounds of their holiday allowances. Some of them feel that they have to spend the whole of the allowance when they are on holiday.
I hope that the Government will consider two of the main points which have been made in the course of the debate. The first is that not everyone wants a package holiday. Some people like to make their own arrangements and move around a country or countries when they are on holiday, and certainly that is not confined to people in the upper income bracket. The second point is that, as a result of the growing facilities for travel, people in future will want to travel more widely than they can at the moment with the £50 restriction.
When I commented earlier about existing holiday agreements preventing people from taking double holidays—and possibly the hon. Gentleman will take the point now—whereas the present limit may be reasonably good for the purposes of the average fortnight's holiday, the possibility of extending it to three weeks obviously increases the difficulty of keeping within the £50 limit.
I do not believe, as some hon. Members have said, that the limit has reduced the number of people coming here from abroad following their experiences with British travellers overseas, with no tipping, and so on. I am not against tipping simply because I am a native of Aberdeen. I was bold enough to say that in the course of our debates on the Development of Tourism Bill. It appears that

most countries in Europe which are developed in terms of tourism have done away with tipping in any event, and there is no question of the number of people from abroad coming here on a reciprocal basis being adversely affected by the Government's £50 foreign currency allowance.
Unlike some of my hon. Friends, I am glad that the hon. Member for Leicester, South-East, initiated this debate. It is not just a matter of making a protest about the allowance, saying that it is insufficient and that we ought to scrap it. We should be looking at the wider development of the holiday trade and at the opportunities provided to our people in the shape of holidays abroad. I am a firm believer in the theory that the more of our people who become accustomed to visiting various countries on the Continent and elsewhere, the more we are likely to attract the expanding tourism which we need and which the Government have helped towards by the Development of Tourism Bill.
One would think from some of the discussions during the various stages of that Measure that the Government have done nothing to assist tourism, but the reciprocal visits of people to and from this country can only be of advantage to us all in the long run.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: The hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne) may have been surprised when some of my hon. Friends objected strongly to one or two of his points. Perhaps I can reassure him by saying that his arguments were a good deal more weighty than those of his hon. Friends who preceded him, because I was astonished to hear some of their arguments. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), for example, seemed to think that if he and his constituents cannot obtain expensive foreign travel, no one else should.
We had, too, the astonishing speech of the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr) who said that we should not bother about the travel allowance because all sensible people knew how to evade it. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East (Mr. Peel) was right when he said that this restriction is an


aspect of bureaucratic Socialism. Nowadays we have rules and regulations which "fly" people know how to fiddle and twist. That, surely, is one of the troubles which beset the country today. We have more and more rules, regulations and restrictions, with the consequence that we are rapidly becoming a nation of fiddlers and twisters. That is just one reason why this restriction should be scrapped quickly.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central is not present to hear what I say about him. Among his other arguments, he said that the travel restriction was a good idea in that it stopped British tourists visiting countries of whose regimes we disapprove, and he mentioned specifically Greece and Spain. I have rarely heard a speech which was based on such a lack of knowledge of the facts. On 12th June, the Foreign Secretary gave details of the number of visitors to Spain since the introduction of the £50 restriction. In 1964, 700,000 British people visited that country. In 1965, the number was 800,000. In 1966, 950,000 British people visited Spain. In 1967, the figure was over 1 million. In 1968, it reached the grand total of 1,282,000. If the restriction has had any effect, it has been to increase substantially the number of people visiting Spain. It is one of the countries where it is possible to have a cheap holiday. If we were concerned about trying to relate our holidays to political views and attitudes—and I do not think that we should be—the £50 allowance must have brought joy to the heart of Spain, and certainly it must be a worry to those in Gibraltar who are suffering from the restrictions and sanctions imposed by the Spanish regime on that territory. I do not think these were good arguments at all.
I bitterly resent the attack that was made on my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East who, quite rightly, suggested that travel restrictions were very much related to freedom and freedom of movement.
Only this morning I had a letter from one of my constituents who is a member of a church which is organising a visit of 10 young Czechoslovaks and their minister from a church in Czechoslovakia. Arrangements had been made for these youngsters to come in mid-August. Word

has just been received that it will be almost impossible for them to come because of a savage restriction on currency spending imposed by the Czechoslovak Government. We are trying to find ways around this restriction. These young people will be allowed to bring with them precisely £2 for their stay of two weeks in this country. We are trying everything possible to find the money. The important thing is that countries like Czechoslovakia are using restrictions on spending specifically for the purpose of curbing foreign travel. Although I should not suggest that the Government are doing the same, it is a bad example which can be quoted in other countries.
It has rightly been said that travel and currency restrictions are not new. We had them in the 1950s when the ceiling moved from £25 to £100, and then between 1959 and 1966 it was virtually abolished.
We now have restrictions again. The main reason advanced in 1966 for bringing in the £50 allowance was because we had difficulties with our balance of payments and because the balance in foreign travel was very much against us.
Since 1938, when we began to keep figures of the amount that our holiday makers spent abroad and the amount that foreign holiday makers spent here, we have had a deficit. I understand that in 1961 we had a deficit of £38 million. In 1966. at the end of a period of unrestricted spending, we had a deficit of £95 million. I am glad to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) that this is now moving the other way. But we have a deficit in travel comparing home and foreign spending.
On the other hand, there is every reason, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East so eloquently argued, for removing or substantially increasing the allowance. If we accept that £50 was a reasonable allowance when it was imposed, we must remember that certain things have happened since.
First, we had devaluation, which has had a very substantial effect on the value of the allowance. But, more important, there has been inflation not just in this country, but in all the countries which our people visit. For example, £50 now


buys only about two-thirds of the services which it could buy in Portugal in 1966.
Spain devalued with us, but, despite that, £50 buys 14 per cent. less in goods and services than in 1966. To that extent, even if we said that all things were equal and there had been no changes, there is a very good case for an immediate increase in the allowance.
The argument about the few rich who are helped by it cannot be justified, because we all know what has been happening. The people with a lot of money who want to go for expensive holidays have been changing the places to which they go. They now go to Malta or to the Bahamas or places where there are not the same restrictions. They can even go to Abu Dhabi if they find it a satisfactory place to have an expensive holiday. Instead of going to certain places, the wealthy are going to other places. To that extent the Government cannot say that the nation has been saving a great deal.
The £50 allowance has probably expanded foreign travel more than it has restricted it, because more people have found, for the first time, perhaps, that they can have a good or a reasonable holiday abroad on £50. There has been a dramatic extension in foreign travel not entirely unrelated to this restriction. In these circumstances, it is impossible for the Government to say that this really is worth while. They have argued that they are not trying to restrict foreign travel but merely the amount spent abroad. This is often very minimal indeed.
As the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central pointed out—I am sorry that it has been pointed out so much—there are many ways round the allowance. If a man has a doctor's line, whether from the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central or any other member of the medical profession, he can get an allowance of £7 a day in foreign currency. The suggestion made is that a man simply goes along to a doctor and says, "I want an injection for cholera." Then, when he has had his injection for cholera, there is more than ample justification for a doctor giving him a line saying, "You need to convalesce abroad to recover

from the injection." There are many arguments like this.
I have been told by someone whose word I trust how he got round the allowance. He went to a West Indian island where there was a casino. I do not go to casinos and I do not like them. But this man went in at one end, bought some chips with sterling, walked to the other end of the casino and cashed those same chips for dollars without gambling one penny or spending one chip. This was told to me by someone who claimed to have done so. I see no reason why it could not be done.
I am not justifying people being dishonest or shady in trying to find their way round the rules. But it is ridiculous that by restrictions like this which really have a minimal effect on the economy, we should force so many people to resort to twisting and finding ways round regulations.
Let us consider spending. The Minister recently gave me the figures for the amount of cash spent in Spain alone. In 1964 £38 million was taken abroad by British tourists. That was a time when we did not have restrictions. Last year, when we had restrictions, British tourists took £48 million—over £10 million more. I feel that, no matter what is said, the effect is minimal.
The numbers of foreign holidays are increasing substantiailly. The wealthy are spending their holidays elsewhere or finding ways round the regulations. What point is there in having such restrictions, particularly in a free country. if there is little saving in currency and we simply encourage people to evade by finding ways round the regulations, if we are simply restricting travel to countries like Spain? Only last week the Foreign Secretary at the Dispatch Box pleaded with the people of Britatin to examine their consciences to see whether they could not try to stay away from Spain for their holidays. But where else, apart from Spain and certain other limited choices, can people go on a £50 allowance?
All the arguments lead to the fact that we should abolish this restriction. If the Government cannot bring themselves to abolish it altogether, there should be a substantial increase so that we can have freedom of choice in our holidays, so that we do not have to twist and evade


and find ways round the restrictions, and so that we can bring back some sanity into what has become more bureaucratic and more annoying as each day passes.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Britain today is in a very particular and peculiar financial position. That is one reason why I oppose the Motion.
The Motion is typically anti-British. It is, therefore, unpatriotic and should be defeated. It is designed to drain from Britain money which is badly needed at home.
It used to be said that it was necessary for one's education to travel abroad. That is no longer necessary. We have the amenities, the instruction and the advantages of countries all over the world without travelling. As Shakespeare said, we have,
England, bound in with the triumphant sea, Whose rocky shore beats back the envious siege.
There is no need today for people to go abroad to obtain what used to be called the advantages of travel.
I oppose this wrong-headed Motion on several grounds which I shall state briefly and seriatim. First, we need the money at home. Secondly, our holiday camps need holiday workers and holiday makers. Thirdly, our hotels, both at the seaside and in the country, need visitors and money. I know that the beautiful city of Aberdeen, which I have the honour to represent, could do with more visitors than it gets today. In the present international situation Britain needs attention at home, both at work and in play.
In our present circumstances we should not pour our largesse abroad. We live in particular circumstances when such money as we have in Britain should be retained. The time may come when the authors of the Motion will have their way and we may pour money into foreign countries. Where are we to go? To dictatorships? To Spain? To Greece? No; I say we should keep our money at home and enjoy the advantages and the fruits of Britain.
It is old-fashioned nonsense to say that we must go abroad for our education. We have at home all that we want. The other evening on television I had

the advantage of seeing pictures of five countries. In our modern libraries there are books of a descriptive character. We have every advantage at home without pouring our money abroad into foreign countries. Butlins and other holiday camps offer not only education but enjoyment to people who want to stay at home. It is wrong for the authors of the Motion to try to induce the Chancellor to change his beneficent rule about the £50 allowance. Let us stay at home. Let us protect our industry. Let us encourage trade, industry, commerce and employment here, instead of spending our money abroad.
I promised to be brief. In view of the time, I have been brief. I hope that the Motion will be defeated.

5.53 p.m.

Captain Walter Elliot: The hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) gave a very fine exposition of Socialist dogma, in that he indicated strongly that he knows what is best for people better than they themselves know; he said that foreign travel is not necessary and that people should stay at home. The answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman is that, whether he likes it or not, millions of people want to take their holidays abroad.
Most of the points I had intended to make have already been covered, but I want to ask the Government a few questions about the £50 allowance. The reason for the restriction is, I understand, to save foreign exchange. Has it been worth while. The Government have quoted figures to show that the balance is in our favour. Are those figures conclusive? My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) mentioned devaluation and spoke of the large numbers of people who come to Britain and spend money here. There are other factors, too. We may stagnate at home, but people abroad are growing wealthier and travelling much more. That is another reason why more people, particularly Germans, are coming to Britain.
I understand that the package tour business is booming. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford gave as the reason that people were forced to go on package tours because individual


holidays were far more expensive, whereas package tour operators are able to get the best terms for holiday makers. I have studied some of these package tours. I have never been on one. It strikes me that by a variety of procedures package tour operators are able to get round the regulations. The holiday maker seems to be able to pay a large proportion of his bill in sterling in Britain. I suppose that in the end it is inevitable that Britain must pay, by one means or another, for a holiday abroad.
I should like to know from the Government how package tour operators are able to achieve this. If they can achieve it, why cannot a private individual? My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) mentioned evasion. We all know that there is a variety of ways. Would I be acting illegally if I opened a bank account in Ireland and started my holiday by going from England to Ireland and then on to another country?
Did the Government consider other methods of imposing restrictions on our spending abroad in an effort to right the balance of payments? Is it more desirable to buy a foreign motor car or foreign wines than to take a foreign holiday? I cannot see that there is much difference.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Might it not be more advantageous to have the holiday rather than buy the car, because an imported foreign car might do more harm to our car industry than a holiday abroad?

Captain W. Elliot: The hon. Gentleman has raised a good point. The argument could be extended over a vast number of articles. It may be argued, though, that an imported car carries tax whereas a foreign holiday does not. If there has to be a restriction on foreign holidays, perhaps it would be better to tax them, though God forbid. It might be argued that that would help the wealthy or the better off. I believe that any talk about a small minority is rubbish, but if it was thought that to tax foreign holidays would help the better off as opposed to the less well off it should be possible to have a progressive tax so that the amount of tax paid would rise in relation to the amount taken from the country. It seems to me that this solution of an overall limit

is a very blunt instrument and I am sure that there are better ways of solving the problem.
My final point concerns the effect of the travel restriction on the nation and the people. There is no doubt that it is humiliating to both. More important, it gives entirely the wrong impression abroad. I have been talking to an Australian and, although this is perhaps not especially relevant, I am sure that it applies in all countries. He was telling me what a bad Press we get in Australia and how different he finds things when he comes to this country. I believe that we get a bad Press all over the world because of these petty restrictions, and that we shall continue to do so unless the Government are able to show that they are really worth while.
When people are abroad on their holidays they naturally count aloud how much they can spend on a particular article, whether it is a meal, a drink or a souvenir. That tends to destroy confidence in ourselves and in this country in the eyes of the rest of the world. This may seem intangible, but it is of vital importance. If we can get rid of these little restrictions it will make all the difference to this country.

6.2 p.m.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Dick Taverne): It may be convenient if I intervene at this stage, although there are a number of hon. Members who wish to speak and who, no doubt, will seek to do so after I have finished. A number of points have been raised and I think it would be convenient if I were to deal with them now in case they are repeated later.
The House will be disappointed if it expects me now to make a promise of relief, or, for that matter, to convey an enthusiastic defence of the restrictions. The disadvantages of these restrictions are plain. Some points that have been enumerated in the debate are, perhaps, more telling than others. The most important disadvantage in the travel limit is the personal restriction which it involves. It may be justifiable but it would have to be justified. There are, of course, other restrictions in the way in which people spend their money but they, too, have to be justified. Quite apart from the personal restriction involved, there are


also irritations without which, normally, we would be better off. Nevertheless, the question is whether or not the justification in this case exists and how far some of the arguments against the restriction have been made up.
A number of points were raised by the hon. Member for Leicester, South-East (Mr. Peel) to whom we are grateful for this opportunity to discuss this subject. Some of those points were amongst the least telling ones which have been made. He said that this was clearly an example of Socialist restrictionism and that it was a badge of dictatorship and contrary to the way in which the Conservatives approached the problem. He has conveniently forgotten the history of this matter. In the early 1950s this was a weapon which the Conservative Administration regarded as just as necessary for the preservation of our balance of payments as do the present Administration. It is not just a case of the Conservative Administration continuing a restriction which had been previously imposed. At the time when the Labour Government left office in 1951 the foreign travel allowance limit was £100, but early on it was reduced to £50 by the Conservatives and early in 1952 it was reduced further to £25. In 1953 it was raised to £40 and it did not return to the £100 limit till the new travel season of 1st November, 1954. Therefore, this is not just something which only the Labour Government have found a useful weapon for protecting the reserves and our balance of payments. It was used before, and indeed quite savagely.

Mr. Peel: I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow the record to be put straight. I did not claim that the Conservative Government were antagonistic to this limit. I simply said that when it was lifted a Tory Government were in power. I did, however, deplore the fact that after the war we were so slow in getting rid of it, and that applies to all Governments.

Mr. Taverne: I agree that the hon. Member made the point that it was lifted by a Conservative Administration, but his charge that this was a badge of dictatorship and was an example of Socialist restrictionism is not borne out, because the limit was lowered by the Conservative Administration when it came into power.
It has been said that this has led to suspicions of our good intentions towards Europe, because on the Continent an unfavourable contrast was drawn with the lack of similar restrictions in the sterling area. Here I should say something about the international position, because the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) asked how far this was contrary to our international obligations. It is not contrary to Bretton Woods. Under Article 8 of the Fund agreement, which was quoted by the hon. Member for Leicester, South-East, member countries must obtain prior consent before imposing restrictions on current payments. This consent was obtained in July, 1966, and it was renewed on 1st November, 1967, and again in 1968. There has to be consent, which is why it is mentioned in the letter, but the Fund has been assured that it is our intention to remove these restrictions as soon as the balance of payments position allows.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for having referred to Article 8 of the I.M.F. Agreement. I accept that consent has been sought and granted. But is he saying that it is in the spirit of the letters exchanged with the that the restrictions should be continued for so long?

Mr. Taverne: No. It is recognised that this is a legitimate weapon to use to protect our balance of payments. That is why it has been used and why consent has been granted.
So far as the O.E.C.D. is concerned, there is specific provision under the code to allow foreign currency freely for travel purposes, but this may be derogated from if there is a deterioration in the balance of payments. None of the members of the O.E.C.D. has objected to our restriction in this field. They have understood the reasons why we have had to use the restriction. It is not regarded as an anti-European gesture.
Again, the special position of the sterling area is understood. It would be impossible to impose travel restrictions relating to the overseas area without restrictions over the whole of exchange within the sterling area, and this is something which, under the present sterling area system, cannot be done and is not done. The sterling area position is understood, and


there is no question of suspicion about our European intentions.
It was said that there was a special allowance of £150 in the case of the World Cup. This is very much in line with the arrangements made for the Olympic Games, both under the previous Administration and recently. The reason is that these are exceptional individual occasions—exceptional in their importance in the sporting world. No other sporting events have received similar treatment or have required similar treatment. They have always been regarded as exceptional.
The question was asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) and by the hon. Member for Leicester, South-East: why not allow foreign holidays when foreign imports are allowed? The whole argument on imports is quite separate. Exchange control arrangements exist, and they are widely accepted. There is a fundamental argument on which sometimes the Government do not find themselves totally at one with some of my hon. Friends: namely, whether or not import quotas would be a solution to our problems. I do not want to go into the arguments now as they involve questions of administration, of how far this is a long-term prob. fern and of the possibility of retaliation. They are quite separate from this field in which there is no question of retaliation.
It has been suggested that these travel restrictions do no good, and this is perhaps the most important argument that has been advanced. I must point to a contradiction in the arguments. It is said that the effect of these restrictions is to make people live too cheaply, and also that they do mean that people are spending less. There is obviously a clear contradiction in these arguments. It was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne) and by the hon. Member for Eastbourne that it makes people spend to the limit. If one considers the average amount spent by visitors overseas, one finds that the reverse is the case. In 1966, before restrictions were imposed, the average spent by persons going abroad was £42. In 1967 it was £37 and last year it was £36. Therefore, there is no case for saying that people are spending more than they did before. In fact, the average has gone down.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Is that on holidays?

Mr. Taverne: This is the average, all expenditure by persons abroad.
The crucial question is how far this measure has helped the balance of payments. In a very fair speech, the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) suggested that it might have been of some help but nevertheless he wanted the restriction removed. There is no doubt that the amount spent on holidays abroad was increasing annually, as one would expect. In 1958 it was £152 million. In 1965 it was £290 million. In 1966, the last year before the restrictions were imposed, it was £297 million. In the two subsequent years, for which we have the figures, that is, 1967 and 1968, total spending abroad dropped from £297 million in 1966 to £275 million in 1967 and £272 million in 1968.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Is that holidays?

Mr. Taverne: This is total expenditure, most of which is on holidays.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Can my hon. and learned Friend give what one might term the import figures? What about money brought in by people coming to this country? How does it balance up?

Mr. Taverne: I shall come to that. Perhaps I may first look at the amounts spent abroad. This includes expenditure both within the non-sterling area and within the sterling area. There has been a particularly sharp drop, as one might expect, in the non-sterling area, from £220 million in 1966 to £193 million in 1967 and £184 million in 1968. There has been a rise in the sterling area, on the other hand, from £75 million in 1966 to £82 million in 1967 and £88 million in 1968.
Those figures are based on the international passenger survey, being figures in the possession of the Board of Trade. It would appear that the rising trend of overseas expenditure which was taking place has been halted. But there are a large number of different factors. One cannot be dogmatic about the effect of the travel restrictions—I recognise that—but it would appear that there has been a useful effect, which has been estimated as £25 million to £30 million a year.
It has been suggested that one must look at the other side of the picture. Does it not adversely affect travel to this country? In fact, one finds that in the growth of world travel, to which the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford pointed, there has been a considerable increase in the number of visitors and in expenditure by foreigners in Britain. In 1966 earnings from overseas visitors were £219 million. In 1967 the figure was £236 million, and in 1968 it was £282 million, which shows, on the face of it, a surplus on this particular account. But it would be wrong to judge it as a separate trade account; one could not do that. It was a question which was raised, so I have produced the figures. One must, however, look at the trend of expenditure abroad and see how far it has been affected.
The average amount spent has always been under £50. It has been pointed out that the allowance is not £50; it is £65. There is £15 sterling in addition, of which one might expect that at least £10 would be spent. In the past, about one quarter of those taking their holidays abroad spent more than this, and it is in that sector that it appears that the measures have had some effect.

Mr. Peel: I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not overlook that the £15 in cash can be exchanged only at a poorer rate of exchange. It is something which people abroad are not very keen to have; they would much rather have it in other forms.

Mr. Taverne: It is true that it does not carry quite the same rate of exchange as travellers' cheques, though I do not think that it is right to say that it is not a popular form of foreign exchange for one to have. One sees frequent exchanges of dollars into pounds in this country, and I do not believe that there is any objection when dollars are exchanged into pounds.
I turn now to another aspect of the matter. There has been some evasion, but it is pursued, and the penalties, when cases are caught, are heavy. There are more than 7 million visits abroad each year. The vast majority of people spend less than the total in any event. The vast majority of people are reasonably honest. Again, hon. Members cannot have it both ways and argue, on the one hand

that these are totally ineffective restrictions and, on the other, that they are indefensible because they act as restrictions. All the evidence is that they do act as restrictions on most people.
As I said at the outset, this is a restriction and, therefore, it calls for justification. The question to be considered is: how far is it justified? How far does the situation permit it to be relaxed? It is not unreasonable to hope that the restriction will be removed soon, but, equally, it would be unreasonable at this stage for me to make a definite promise that it will be removed shortly. I am sure that the House, looking at the matter seriously and soberly, will agree that one must see how the balance of payments develops over the next few months. It will be considered again in the autumn, and an announcement will be made in good time before the next travel year begins.
As I have said, there appears to be good evidence justifying the restriction, but it is something which one does not wish to continue one moment longer than it is needed. I hope that, in the circumstances, the hon. Member for Leicester, South-East will not press his Motion to a Division.

6.17 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Before commenting on the Minister's speech, I add my voice to the congratulations already offered to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East (Mr. Peel) on his luck in the Ballot and on his decision to table a Motion on the subject of the travel allowance restriction. I was glad that both the hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne)—he is not in his place at the moment—and the Minister of State took the same view, thereby clearly dissociating themselves from what I thought were the un. fair remarks made by the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr) and his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller), who seemed somehow to think that it was unnecessary or even improper that we should have a few hours to debate a matter of considerable consequence to a large number of people.
It so happens that the debate is well timed, coming as it does shortly after the publication of the Letter of Intent


signed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, in which, I was glad to see, the Chancellor undertook that the Government would
abolish as soon as the balance of payments allows the restrictions which it currently maintains on travel expenditure".
Obviously, that is a very carefully worded passage, as the whole Letter was, and it has aroused, I think, justifiable optimism that this may be the last time we have to debate the travel restrictions.
The trade in particular will have been disappointed that the Minister could not go further than he did. I emphasise a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland (Mr. Kenneth Lewis); namely, the need for the Government to give early warning of their intention to remove the restriction. I am told that already the brochures for next summer's holidays are either at the printers or will shortly be going to them, and they have had to assume the continuance of the restrictions. But the planning for the winter holiday season, 1970–71, is already under way. Plans will have to be laid fairly soon. Any advance warning that the Government can give will be of immense value to the tour operators, travel agents and others, including the airlines, who have to plan their programmes well in advance.
It has been put to me that there would be an advantage in the Government's indicating, perhaps earlier than they would otherwise do, that it would be their intention to lift the restriction as from the beginning of the holiday season next November, even if they have to issue at the same time a clear caveat that if the balance of payments does not improve sufficiently to enable that to be done the decision might have to be revoked. It came as a surprise to me that the trade would welcome even a qualified and guarded statement of that kind. But that is the position that has been put to me, and I put it to the Government in the hope that they will feel able to take note of it.
The Minister's speech boiled down to a case for the restriction that was typical of the case repeatedly made; namely, that the gain to the balance of payments is about £25 to £30 million a year. It is remarkable that no Minister who has had

to deal with the matter has ever been able to be any more specific, and no Chancellor, despite repeated questioning, has felt able to publish his calculations in arriving at this figure.
I very much welcomed the Minister's recognition that merely to rely on the bald figures of British tourists' expenditure abroad and the corresponding figure of foreign tourists' spending here is not wholly reliable. The whole debate—not today's debate but that which has gone on in the country ever since July, 1966, when these measures were reintroduced—has been marked by a great haze of doubt surrounding the value of the restrictions as a method of saving foreign exchange. What it boils down to is that after the restrictions were imposed there was a dip in the published figures of expenditure on travel outside the sterling area. The Financial Times pointed out in an article on 27th August last year that this was a very simpliste inference to draw. The article continued:
It is an elementary statistical precaution to ask what else was happening at the time, before jumping to the conclusion that the departure from trend was all due to a particular act of policy".
It is essential to ask what else has been happening over the recent period.
I invite the Minister to ask any travel agent what factors led to the down-turn in spending. He would be told that there were many other factors of much more immediate causative effect than the restrictions on currency, especially the liar! h deflationary measures with which they were accompanied. These are bound to make people much more careful in their spending on all sorts of things, particularly those parts of their budget which are flexible, and for many people, holiday spending is about the only part of their annual budget that can really be regarded as flexible. This restriction operated at the time when bookings were being made, and the figures clearly reflect that the down-turn in forward commitment in holiday travel very closely accompanied the introduction of deflationary measures, with the rise in unemployment and everything else that accompanied them.
There is added evidence. The travel business has shown clearly that the largest setbacks came among the relatively cheap package tour operators, and especially


with tours that have a low foreign currency content. By definition, they are almost wholly unaffected by the currency restrictions. I am glad to have the assent of the hon. Member for Walton, because I am sure that he will appreciate that this goes a long way to destroy the Minister's argument justifying the continuation of the restrictions.
It is well known that any degree of political uncertainty or civil strife in a country immediately turns off the tap of foreign travel. Look at what happened to the hoteliers of Paris at the time of the May disturbances last year. It was months before they began to recover. Some of that business will have gone elsewhere. But many people will have cancelled their plans, been unable to put anything else in their place, and stayed in this country.
Reference has been made to travel to Spain. I was most interested in the figures my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) elicited. The Gibraltar imbroglio will have had some effect on travel to that country.
Looking at the other side, which country has enjoyed the biggest percentage increase in British travel overseas? The answer is the United States of America, right at the expensive end of the spectrum. Bearing in mind that the very expensive translantic fares do not come into the currency restrictions, and that almost the whole of the £65 is bound to be spent in almost every case, one can begin to recognise that the reduction of outflow of sterling is hardly proven.
Even the case the Minister made was qualified, and when account is taken of all these other facts it becomes of very doubtful validity indeed.
One's scepticism is further increased when one studies international comparisons. Here we have the advantage of a fairly recently published study, "Freedom to Travel", headed "An Economic Study of the Advantages of the Development of International Tourism without Restrictions", published in March by the European Travel Commission. It gives a much more penetrating analysis of the United Kingdom's situation over the past few years than anything the Minister of State gave us in the debate, and makes clear that before we strike

a balance of advantage we must take many other things into account.
Among the most vocal critics of the Government's policy in this country have been the airlines, both nationalised and private, because they have lost substantially as a result of the Government's restriction. Yet there was not a whisper in the Minister's speech that any account has been taken of the loss to the nationalised airlines as a result of the falling-off in traffic because of the travel restrictions.
What about the investment that has been made overseas by British travel operators in travel facilities, such as hotels? Has any account been taken by the Government of the loss of earnings to this country because these facilities have been under-utilised as a result of the restrictions? These are all facts which have to be taken into account.
Again, when looking at the balance the other way—and I am glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman made the point that it is wrong to look at tourism as a single, isolated balance of payments figure—one has to have regard to the results of devaluation on increased spending on purchases in this country by tourists coming here. The conclusion of this highly reputable international body is this:
In summary, the travel balance argument in relation to U.K. tourism earnings and expenditure requires closer analysis in order to take account of all the factors which can ultimately determine a `true' balance on the travel account. Restrictions on travel can affect U.K. air lines and U.K. hotel investors abroad, will reduce income to these principles and this reduction will be substantial in the future, particularly in relation to the air lines.
I do not believe that the Government have taken these factors into account. Nothing that the hon. and learned Gentleman said gave any indication that he had done other than take a broad inference from the figures of spending.
I do not need to stop there. When one is going to weigh the speculative balance of payments advantage against the powerful and compelling arguments to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred, one must bear in mind two further points. First, the spending by British tourists overseas is a tiny proportion of the total expenditure on goods and services. In 1961 it was 3·9 per cent.; in 1965 it was


again 3·9 per cent.; in 1967 it was 4 per cent.; and I am prepared to accept that in 1968 it may have fallen back a little because devaluation will have sharply put up the cost of imports.
If one bears in mind the marginal effect, which is all it is, that travel restrictions may have even on this tiny proportion of the total spending overseas, one begins to see that one is juggling over a miniscule share of the total spending overseas.
Second, it is wrong to look at the tourist balance in isolation, just as it is wrong to look at the visible trade balance in isolation. In fact, many countries regularly run tourist deficits, including the United States, Canada, France, West Germany, Holland, Scandinavia, Belgium and Luxembourg. These countries together regularly provide more than half our tourist earnings. In 1964 a total of 56 per cent. of our earnings came from this group of countries in 1965 the figure was 57 per cent.; in 1966 it was 58 per cent. and in 1967 it was 60 per cent. We are a major beneficiary of other countries' tourism deficits, and it is taking a narrow, myopic view of our future as major participants in the growth of international travel to justify these petty, irksome restrictions by reliance on our balance of payments on tourism.
The Minister of State's case, even at its best, has been shown to be founded on a shaky statistical basis. Against it, I see three powerful arguments. First, the present arrangements are riddled with loopholes and there is no doubt that they are subject to widespread evasion. The hon. and learned Gentleman gave the impression, as did the Chancellor the other day, that he does not know what is going on. It is a perfectly legal form of avoidance to get the medical certificates which the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central said that he was so free with. Who can say that his health will not be improved by a trip overseas, especially after one of our fouler British winters? I understand that in many areas certificates are readily forthcoming and are always accepted without question, because bank managers are too busy to make their own investigations. Even on a small scale, most of the cross-Channel ferries are offering vouchers for purchases on board so that one does not

have to touch the £15 allowance, which is then available to be spent overseas. These are the legal ways. There are illegal ones.
Cash is smuggled out—and this does not come into the figures at all. I was struck by a paragraph in an article in the Daily Mail of 16th October in which Mr. Vincent Mulchrone wrote
In Greece earlier this year our travel editor, Peter Whelpton, questioned 40 English tourists. Four out of five admitted that they had brought extra cash.
This is not evasion on a tiny scale. This is simply the manner in which the tourist, if he is going to have a holiday in a country like Greece, has to provide himself with the necessary cash, and it goes out stuffed in his socks. We know of cases of business allowances which are not fully spent and are deposited in banks abroad. Travellers' cheques are exchanged in an overseas sterling area country, such as Malta or Jordan—and one goes to Jordan first before going on to Israel because Israel is outside the sterling area. Many of my hon. Friends have also mentioned the West Indies as another example. It is just one more example—and here I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart—of a restriction that is petty, pointless and damaging, which is making criminals of us all and bringing the law into disrepute.
The second major objection is that the restriction represents a severe incursion on individual liberty. It was good to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledge that point. But it is right that we should answer the point made by the hon. Member for Walton that because the great majority-75 per cent., on the Minister's figures—find that they can manage their holiday within the allowance, that is the end of the matter. I do not accept the argument that an injustice ceases to be an injustice because only a few people are affected. On the contrary, the people hit by this are the "loners"—those who want to get away from the beaten track, who want to explore on their own, perhaps with a car, and perhaps stay rather longer than most people are able to do. This applies particularly to those who have just retired. It is becoming increasingly the custom in the United States that on retirement one has a long holiday overseas, maybe the only one of one's life. This is something which these restrictions make


impossible. These are the people one hits. It is the mark of an uncivilised attitude to believe that if only a few people are affected one can accept the situation with equanimity and say that it is not really important. This country is almost alone in feeling no qualms at restricting its people from travel.
Then, of course, there is the question of confidence. No doubt the Government will remember Lord Cromer's letter to The Times last year. I realise that Lord Cromer is not perhaps the favourite banker of Treasury Ministers, but he wrote:
If confidence in Sterling is at issue no measure in itself could be contrived more effectively to disseminate more widely in the world at large an unfortunate and uncalled for belief that Sterling is not a good currency to hold…The pleading of poverty of foreign exchange by British tourists abroad in hotels, restaurants, and elsewhere does not enhance confidence in Sterling or in a Government which causes its citizens to debase themselves into begging special consideration.
That sentiment was repeated, in different word, by The Guardian last October:
Britain's reputation abroad is undoubtedly damaged by the restrictions put on British tourists, eking out their francs and lira to cover a whole fortnight: nothing more effectively impresses on the minds of the Europeans that Britain is still in a precariously bad way.
If the Government had wanted to set about undermining confidence in the pound, if they wanted to blazen abroad to ordinary people like the French hotelier, the German restaurateur, the Italian taxi driver or the Swiss ski instructor, by giving the impression that our economy is in a dangerously parlous state, they could not have devised a more effective method than to send out millions of our people counting every centime, every pfennig, every lira or every cent they spend. If, as I believe is true, confidence is a critical weapon in the fight for prosperity, the sooner these niggling, irksome, illiberal and petty retrictions are abolished the better.

Question put and negatived.

MONOPOLIES COMMISSION

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Keith Stainton: I beg to move,
That this House views with concern the lack of a clear Government lead in relation to recent reports of the Monopolies Commission and related matters
When I put down the Motion, I thought that I would thereby be doing a great service to British industry, the City and the public generally. Alas, it now looks as though I bought a pig in a poke, for I have only 20 minutes to go. That is nobody's fault, but I hope that it will be understood if I skin various points. I hope that the Minister will not interpret it as lack of courtesy if I curtail his latitude for reply.
The recent reports of the Monopolies Commission which I have particularly in mind and which I want to make the centre of the debate are the last two, that on the agreed take-over bid by Unilever for Allied Breweries and the contested bid by the Rank Organisation for De La Rue. Those reports are of great significance. First, they make specific comments on the two deals; second, they display a substantial widening of the criteria on which the Commission works; finally, both reports have a common annex headed "General Observations on Mergers". The appendices to the annex are highly relevant to the future development of monopoly, merger and take-over practice in this country
.
The reports come at an important juncture in the industrial affairs of the country. The year 1968 saw acquisitions of large or public manufacturing companies totalling some £1,600 million. Although the number of companies involved was down on previous years, the actual finance was more than three times as great as five years previously. Therefore, superimposed on the general background of take-overs and mergers there is clearly the problem of bigness.
These fears of bigness bring in their train many questions about City ethics and financial techniques. We have the expression "funny money" which derives from the fact that debentures or loan stock are liable before tax is charged whereas the victim to be taken over has probably paid corporation tax before striking its return to its shareholders.
There are problems of job security, and as part of the general background may I refer to "Le défi Americain"? I am sure that the Minister will understand all the implications of the title of that book. These fears are often emotive, but that is not surprising. The old familiar pattern is disappearing, and disappearing rapidly. The number of United Kingdom manufacturing companies quoted in the appendix to the Report of the Monopolies Commission fell by no less than 31 per cent. between 1961 and 1968.
There are always fear and emotion when millions are on the march, and I refer not to the millions who might be mentioned in the headlines of the Morning Star but to millions of pounds, shillings and pence. However emotively expressed, these fears are by no means without substance, and they point to the need for a clear lead from the Government.
I turn now in terms of bigness and concentration to the confusion which is inherent in the 1965 Monopolies and Mergers Act, in which bigness and market power are utterly run together. In fact, it is impossible to find any rationale for the £5 million. On the whole, however, I agree with the Monopolies Commission when it says in its annex that there is no reason to think that this merger activity has so far led to the growth of companies whose absolute size is such as to raise important questions for the public interest. My information would suggest that the £5 million, allowing for the change in the value of money, is probably now too small anyway.
But I stress the use of the phrase "so far" as employed by the Commission, and I put particular emphasis on the disappearance of the decision-making units. Although large companies, large corporations and conglomerates, if well organised, have subsidiary structures which are capable of decision-making, they are vastly different from the independent company which has to make its own way with its own stockholders.
I have referred to conglomerates only in passing, and I say a word or two more on this subject in the hope that the Government may respond to it specifically. To a degree, the development of

conglomerates emphasises the point about bigness and concentration. There is a general fear that they will "make a mess of it", a fear of the wheeler-dealer kind of operation and the fear that the growth of conglomerates may merely be an excuse for bad management as fresh acquisitions may cover blunders in the past.
I was delighted on the whole to see the balanced way in which the Commission dealt with this point when it said that the term "conglomerate" as implied in this sense was clearly pejorative. Although we have to watch the situation carefully, I believe that the conglomerates have a useful rôle to play—this is recognised by the Commission—in terms of providing finance and management expertise within a certain defined area. The Commission does not develop the argument of the virtues of conglomerates in terms of filleting the rather sleepy company which has lost its way, but I see no reason why one should not be entirely forthright about this and proclaim that the conglomerate is a service to the economy in defined circumstances.
I was particularly interested by the reference in the appendix to account presentation whereby not only conglomerates but all companies might in future be required in the presentation of their statutory annual account to note the impact that acquisitions had had on their profitability and assets situation. This is not an easy matter to deal with, because in the new grouping which arises out of the acquisition the company taken over often loses its identity—it is merged, it is rationalised. But I believe that legislation along these lines, or, failing that, some co-operation from the Stock Exchange and the chartered accountants acting in advance, as the Jenkins Committee did with the last Companies Act, could improve matters, and that firms might well be encouraged to act on that. Such figures would form part of the statutory accounts unless an auditor certified that it was impossible to make a fair representation on that point.
Throughout the country there is a degree of ambivalence about mergers. It is recognised that largeness has a rôle to play in terms of competing internationally and coping with rapid obsolescence with the advance of technology. At the same time, many people are concerned about


the relatively small home market compared with the U.S.A. and the European Economic Community.
An aspect of ambivalence on which I want to tackle the Government concerns specifically the I.R.C. I do not want to lose my way in the short time which I have by discussing its raison d'etre but may I tell the Minister of the kind of reference to the I.R.C. with which one meets not merely in the City but among provincial industrialists? One example is that it is said that the I.R.C. can "get away with murder". With that one finds the sort of expression which I recently heard from a leading merchant banker who said, "When we go to the Monopolies Commission, they treat us like a lot of pickpockets." When the two expressions are aligned, the result is extremely disturbing.
I would go so far as to say that unless the I.R.C. and the Industrial Expansion Act are handled with transparent, even laborious, regard for the best aspects of monopoly merger philosophy from now on, then merger policy in Britain risks being hurried into an early state of disrepute. What is public virtue will become private vice. Legislation governing mergers and monopolies now extends to 13 major statutes, five quasi—statutesif I could put the Stock Exchange rules and similar rules under that heading—four separate Ministers and the N.E.D.O. Clearly, there is a need to sort this out so that people can see where they are going.
Second, there is the criterion for reference by the Board of Trade to the Monopolies Commission. This is apparently extending at a rate of knots. We heard the speech made by the President of the Board of Trade in this House on 17th April. What disturbs me particularly—I shall touch on only two points—is that emerging from these last two reports of the Monopolies Commission there is what I would call the debasement of the shareholders' judgment and the general theme which appears to be that they will react only to immediate financial advantage.
This is a point of great misconception but of great profundity. It is a matter requiring the most careful attention and correction. In terms of the criterion used by the Commission, I very much hope that the Government will find it possible

to disclaim entirely the type of staff poll held at De La Rue during the course of the Monopoly Commission's investigations. In this context De La Rue acted as agents provocateurs, canvassing its agents abroad and conducting the poll among its staff at a point when tensions were obviously running extremely high.
The only parallel we have with this is the attempted take-over of Edwards High Vacuum by Varian Associates some three or four years ago. It is most ironic that the outcome there, although that approach was frustrated, was that the company fell victim, at a lower price later, to an English company. I believe that the executives have subsequently become extremely unhappy and are now leaving.
I wish to propose action to amalgamate the Government agencies and produce guidelines in terms of take-overs. I want substantially to qualify the expression "guidelines". I have read and re-read the Conservative Government's 1964 White Paper which contemplated public interest guidelines to assist the Monopolies Commission. It still makes very good reading, but my impression is that it is not quite what is called for. If the Government would get a move on and sort out the various agencies and let us have not merely a glossary or bibliography of the various ways in which we proceed but something more of the philosophy of the Board of Trade and its approach to these matters, that would be sufficient for the time being.
The delay by the Board of Trade is of considerable concern throughout industry. We must compliment it on the restraint it has exercised in references under the 1965 Act. Whether this will hold good now in view of the last two reports remains to be seen. There can be no doubt that the Board of Trade is exceedingly slow. It took nearly two months to make up its mind to refer the Unilever and Rank bids to the Commission, which was asked to report within not more than four months. The Commission beat the target by about a fortnight. Let us round it off at six months, and we see the effect of this and the impossibility of the situation in terms of the dropping of the Unilever bid on account of a change in market circumstances.
I stressed at the outset that I meant no discourtesy to the Minister, but I should like to speak a little more about the disrepute which has tended to cloud some of the practices in the take-over area. I refer specifically to the City code on take-overs and mergers. The first edition of this did not get off to a good start. The staffing and sanctions in the code did not work, as we saw with the Gallagher bid and the News of the World battle. The April 1969 code is good, and I should like to see the Board of Trade embrace it publicly instead of at a distance, through an official, as has been the case up to now.
My complaints about the code and its operation are somewhat detailed, but to be particular, there is no industrialist on this panel. There is a finance director of I.C.I., but I do not regard him as an industrialist in this context. I am full of compliments for the new Director-General, Mr. Ian Fraser; with any luck he will do a good job. Case histories should be made available from the take-over panel so that we all know where we are going.
There are many other points I should like to make. It has not been my intention to be discourteous to the Government, and I hope that in the very few minutes remaining to him the Minister of State may be able to put his finger on one or two of the salient points, as he sees them.

6.57 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Edmund Dell): As the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) will acknowledge, I shall not be able to take up many of his points in the three minutes remaining. Perhaps I can face head-on one or two specific criticisms of the operation by the Board of Trade of the monopolies and mergers legislation, particularly mergers legislation.
First of all, the hon. Member criticises us for excessive delay in operating this legislation. I cannot accept the criticism. A total of 75 per cent. of cases are dealt with within two weeks, and 90 per cent. in three weeks. He makes a particular reference to the Unilever bid, where a longer period of consideration, I accept, took place, before a decision was made to refer that case. There was considerable difficulty in deciding whether it should be referred, and before referring it we wished to take advantage of the fullest consultation with the two ecru-panics concerned. This consultation took place with the chairmen of the two companies, and it was only following that and an assessment of the risks involved and all the benefits likely to accrue that we decided that it was a case that should be referred. This was exceptional. The normal period is far shorter.
The hon. Member calls for a clear lead from the Government, but he did not give too clear an indication as to what this would comprise. For example, there is the subject of guidelines. Guidelines of public interest to the Monopolies Commission or guidelines for the Board of Trade in deciding which mergers should be referred? As the hon. Gentleman knows, and as the President of the Board of Trade has pointed out in the House and in speeches in the country, we shall publish a handbook which will describe how the Board of Trade operates merger legislation.
This does not mean that it is possible to provide clear guidelines that will in all cases remove uncertainty whether a merger will be referred. It is impossible to do this. An attempt has been made to do so in the United States, but it just cannot be done within—

It being Seven o'clock, the Proceedings on the Motion lapsed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 5 (Precedence of Government Business).

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. Speaker: I have published, as is my wont, my list of selections. I need not remind the House that we are starting the Report stage of the Bill at 7 o'clock and that reasonably brief speeches would, I think, be appreciated by everybody.

New Clause No. 1

INCREASE OF RENTS OF HOUSES BELONG ING TO CERTAIN AUTHORITIES WITHOUT NOTICE OF REMOVAL

(1) Subject to subsection (2) and (3) of this section, where a house belonging to an authority to which this section applies is let for any period, the rent payable to the authority under the tenancy may, without the tenancy being terminated, be increased with effect from the beginning of any rental period (that it to say, a period in respect of which a payment of rent falls to be made) by a written notice of increase given by the authority to the tenant not less than four weeks before the beginning of rental period, or any earlier day on which the payment of rent in respect of that period falls to be made).

(2) Where an authority to which this section applies gives under subsection (1) of this section a notice of increase which is to be operative as from the beginning of a rental period and the tenancy continues into that period, the notice shall nevertheless not have effect if the tenancy is terminated by a notice of removal given by the tenant in accordance with the provisions express or implied of the tenancy, and—

(a) the notice of removal is given before the end of the period of two weeks following the date on which the notice of increase is given, or such longer period as may be allowed by the notice of increase; and
(b) the date on which the tenancy is made to terminate is not later than the earliest clay on which the tenancy could be terminated by a notice of removal given by the tenant on the last day of that period.

(3) A notice of increase given by an authority to which this section applies under subsection (1) of this section shall not be valid unless it informs the tenant of—

(a)his right to terminate the tenancy and the steps to be taken by him if he wishes to do so, and
(b) the dates by which, if the increase is not to be effective, the notice of removal must be received by the authority and the tenancy be made to terminate.

(4) This section shall apply in relation to a tenancy of a house belonging to an authority to which this section applies notwithstanding

that the letting took place before the date of the commencement of this Act.

(5) This section shall apply to any of the following authorities, that is to say—

(a) a local authority;
(b) a development corporation as defined in section 2 of the New Towns (Scotland). Act 1968;
(c) the Scottish Special Housing Association;
(d) a regional water board or a water development board as respectively defined in section 34(1) of the Water (Scotland) Act 1967.

(6) In this section 'local authority' means a town council, county council, joint county council of a combined county, or a joint board or a joint committee; and for the purposes of the definition of local authority 'joint board' and 'joint committee' have the meanings respectively assigned to them by section 379(1) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947.

(7) Section 12 of the Prices and Incomes Act 1968 (increase of local authority rents without notice to quit) is hereby repealed.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.1 p.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mahon): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: We can take at the same time the Government Amendments Nos. 33 and 34.

Dr. Mabon: These Amendments are consequential to the new Clause.
The House will recall that the National Board for Prices and Incomes, in its Report No. 62 on local authority rents, suggested in paragraph 81 that the requirement of a formal notice to quit to accompany the offer of a new tenancy at a new rent should be changed. Accordingly, Section 12 of the Prices and Incomes Act, 1968, allowed the local authority to increase the rents of houses in their housing revenue account by sending to the tenants a simple notice of increase. The new Clause re-enacts for Scotland Section 12 of the Prices and Incomes Act, 1968.
We have taken this opportunity of extending it to cover the Scottish Special Housing Association and the new town development corporations. Hon. Members with experience of this matter know that constituents who have been affected by this procedure in the past were, understandably but wrongly, sometimes distressed about the meaning of these formal


notices. This change has been welcomed, and I hope that the new Clause will receive the endorsement of all concerned. Certainly local authorities are very glad about it because it also brings in school houses, police houses and houses owned by water and sewerage authorities which are not in the housing revenue account.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I am glad to accede to your request, Mr. Speaker, by making a very short speech. I hope to be able to continue in this way.
The new Clause deals with something which has caused many misunderstandings in Scotland. There was an obligation on public authorities, when informing tenants that the rent would be raised, to give a notice to quit at the same time. The Minister has rightly said that people were often distressed and were very anxious because they thought that they were being turned out of their house. They often required firm legal assurance before they were satisfied. We therefore accept the principle of the Clause, which should improve the situation in Scotland.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause No. 2

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE STRENGTHENING OF HIGH TOWER BLOCKS

The percentage of grant payable by the Secretary of State towards the costs incurred by local authorities in the strengthening of high tower blocks as a result of the Ronan Point disaster shall be increased from 40 per cent. to 60 per cent.—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: It will be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 35, in the Title, line 17, after 'tenancy', insert:
'to increase the percentage grant payable to local authorities for the strengthening of high tower blocks;'
I remind the House that we discussed the principles behind the new Clause on the parallel English Bill.

Mr. Campbell: The new Clause has the effect of raising by 20 per cent. the Exchequer's share of the necessary costs to ensure safety in certain multi-storey buildings. I remember the debate of a week or two ago to which you, Mr. Speaker, have referred, but it was restricted by the Chair to a discussion of the situation in England and Wales. The principle is the same in Scotland. Therefore, I should like briefly to indicate the problem in Scotland.
The disaster over a year ago at Ronan Point has, fortunately, not been repeated elsewhere as far as I know. There was an inquiry straight away and it was found that certain kinds of multi-storey buildings which had previously been thought to be entirely safe required strengthening because it is possible that in a certain combination of circumstances such buildings could suffer partial collapse.
The Ministers concerned, including the Secretary of State for Scotland, gave guidance to local authorities and other public authorities concerned to obtain the advice of consultants. I understand that that has been done in Scotland. I do not know whether all local authorities have yet done it, but the trend has been that local authorities have employed consultants who have advised them that certain buildings need strengthening. No doubt this process is continuing.
Local authorities concerned and Parliamentary replies have indicated that there are 18 local authorities concerned in Scotland. They are confined to certain areas, but in those areas where there are several such buildings this is a very serious matter. It is not only a question of the cost of paying contractors to carry out the work. There are the ancillary expenses of loss of rent when tenants have been moved out, and of finding alternative accommodation for the tenants; and I believe that tenants can reasonably claim for moving expenses when they have to move lock, stock and barrel into other accommodation. These are necessary expenses. I repeat that at the time these buildings were constructed they were regarded as being entirely safe. No disaster like Ronan Point was foreseen or in any way apprehended.
We are not concerned here with increased public expenditure. I say that


in case hon. Members opposite say, as they sometimes do, that we on this side of the House are arguing for increased public expenditure when at other times we urge the Government to curb it. Our proposal refers to the essential work which must be done to make these buildings safe and the expenditure incurred in doing that work. Both sides of the House will agree that this work must be carried out. The question which arises is how the expenditure is to be shared between the public authorities upon whom it falls. If it is to be shared in the way suggested by the Government namely a 40 per cent. Exchequer grant with the rest to be covered by local authorities, the few local authorities which have several buildings in this condition will be faced with a comparatively large bill which will seriously affect their housing finance. We suggest that more of the expenditure should be covered by the Exchequer. It would then be shared by the whole country and would cause less of a problem to local authorities which, through no fault of their own, and entirely by misfortune, suffer from this danger and are having to spend money to put it right.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have had occasion to express their anxiety on this subject, but we have not been able to discuss it as it affects Scotland, although there have been many Questions on it by which we were able to draw attention to what was happening and to ask the Government what they were doing. They have always replied that they were engaged in discussions with the Scottish local authorities. When we managed to discover what was happening the indication from local authorities was that they hoped that at least 75 per cent. of the cost would be covered by the Government. We naturally do not know the course of those discussions, but we got the impression from our contacts that the local authorities concerned expected a great deal more than 40 per cent.
In a case like this, where a disaster has occurred but, fortunately, has not been repeated—although the danger exists—we believe that this must be regarded as money which has to be spent on safety and that more of it should be covered by the Exchequer than is proposed by the Government.

Sir John Gilmour: As there are no high blocks of flats in my constituency, I feel that I can look on the new Clause rather more dispassionately than some hon. Members from constituencies where there are flats of this type. In the same way, when one seeks, as the Clause does, to spread the net wider, it means that my constituents would be paying their share. In all the circumstances, however, I think that that would be the fairest way of dealing with the problem.
It is no fault of the local authorities concerned that this accident took place. Indeed, it may be the case that, because of the needs of safety, more remedial work has been done than is absolutely necessary. Be that as it may, the justice and the logic are surely that when a mistake in design has been made, if the blame cannot he pinned fairly and squarely on one person, the fairest thing to do is to spread the burden as widely as we can. That is what my hon. Friends seek to do in the Clause, and I very much hope that this view will prevail.

Mr. Esmond Wright: I wish to reinforce the points made by my hon. Friends but to put the matter in a Glasgow context. I should like to be reassured, when the Minister replies, that of the 58 high-tower blocks in Scotland, only three of the 18 in Glasgow incur the risk of needing these repairs.
I support my hon. Friends in the contention that in simple justice and equity the burden should not be loaded as to 60 per cent. on Glasgow and only 40 per cent. on the national Exchequer. The logic for Glasgow operates pro rata for Cumbernauld, where, I understand, there are 15 high-tower blocks, but I do not know how many are vulnerable and need at least checking, and there are 14 in Edinburgh.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) has pointed out, local authorities, rightly or wrongly, were under the impression that they would get a 75 per cent. grant. How will the Minister approach the City of Glasgow, which has just carried through what is, perhaps, the first effective revision of its rent and rate structure following the 33 wasted years of a Labour-controlled Glasgow Corporation?


How will the Minister of State ask Glasgow Corporation to find what, I understand, may amount to £.1½ million to cope with the consequences of the disaster?
I should like to draw a parallel, as we did in the House a week or 10 days ago, with Hurricane Q, which hit Glasgow 18 months ago. I suggest that the Ronan Point disaster is exactly similar to the disaster which struck Glasgow 18 months ago. In all justice and equity, the burden should be carried by the Government at least to the extent of 60 per cent. and not 40 per cent.
When the Minister responds, I should like him to give the facts concerning the the number of blocks affected and to reply to the case which I seek to make in terms of justice and equity.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. N. R. Wylie: Arising from something that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow. Pollok (Mr. Wright) has said, I feel justified in intervening shortly. My hon. Friend referred to Edinburgh, which is one of those cities in Scotland where high flats are becoming more and more obvious and to which greater resort has to be made because of the shortage of building land. In my constituency, there are three high-tower blocks which have been affected by the Ronan Point disaster.
Unfortunately—or fortunately, perhaps; I do not know—one of those three blocks is occupied and was occupied at the material time. The housing authority felt it possible and safe to leave it occupied. The other two, however, have remained unoccupied. That means that in my constituency alone, something like the equivalent of 260 houses are unoccupied. When one has regard to the enormous waiting list for local authority housing in Edinburgh, this is something which we clearly cannot allow to continue.
I understand from discussions which I have had with Edinburgh Corporation that negotiations have been going on with the central Government and with the Minister for some time, and I certainly would not wish to say anything that would prejudice those discussions. The Government's attitude seems, however, to have precluded any advance on the 40 per cent.

grant which some days ago, in connection with the Housing Bill for England and Wales, we challenged as being inadequate. We make the same challenge again.
It seems to us quite inadequate that the central Government should pay only 40 per cent. of the cost of restoration, which, I understand, in Edinburgh's case will be in excess of £½ million. That is a considerable burden for the ratepayers. I ask the Minister, even at this late stage and notwithstanding that the matter was resolved against us in the Housing Bill for England and Wales, to have regard to the needs of housing authorities in Scotland, particularly those which are affected by the problem, because it is the major housing authorities and the major cities which have to go in for this type of development. It imposes a very heavy burden upon the ratepayers. I ask the Minister to think again.

Mr. David Steel: I share in this matter the altruism of the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) in that there are no tower blocks in my constituency. As the member of my party who served on the Committee stage of the Bill, however, I received quite a lot of representations from members of my party throughout Scotland when it was known that this matter would be discussed. On behalf of my colleagues, I support the new Clause in the name of the Opposition.
In trying to determine the fair balance between what the national Exchequer should bear and what the local authorities affected should pay for this remedial work, it is worth casting our minds back to the report of the inquiry into the Ronan Point disaster. It shows that a fair amount of responsibility lies with agencies of the central Government. The report states, for example, at page 52,
that the National Building Agency was not excused for a failure to consider how this type of building would react when damaged as a result of some abnormal incident.
The other Government organisation which might have been expected to be aware of the structural implications of system building is the Building Research Station…the B.R.S. appears to have taken no steps either to follow up the structural problems of system building, or to give warning of the danger of progressive collapse".


On page 53, it is stated:
It is unfortunate that just when many large building firms, with the support of some architects, were advocating continental system building, engineers in this country were largely lukewarm or uninformed. It was in these unpropitious professional circumstances that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, who themselves did not have qualified engineering staff to advise them, launched their industrialised building drive.
In the first place, therefore, it is fair to suggest that the national or Government authority must itself accept a considerable part of the responsibility for the local authorities proceeding with this type of building.
To be fair, the Government have not dodged their responsibility in this matter. In a letter from the Scottish Development Department to local authorities on 6th June, it was stated:
As to the use of industrialised building for this purpose, the Government accept that its extended use has been a feature of the policy both of themselves and of their predecessors".
So I think this is the first thing we ought to get absolutely clear in trying to assess the balance of expenditure between the national and the local authorities.
I will, if I may, just raise two questions about how these grants are to operate and about the advice which has been given to local authorities and which has been drawn to my attention. In the same letter which I have just quoted it is suggested:
In each instance it is proper that the local authority which commissioned the building should consider whether any claim lies against the contractor.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Hear, hear.

Mr. Steel: This may well be so. The Minister says "Hear, hear", but I wonder, if a local authority takes legal action against the contractor and fails in that action, whether the Government will regard that as part of legitimate expenditure for which they would pay grant. I think it is a fair point, and the local authorities are entitled to know this before reaching a view on the advice given to them.
On the same point of coincidental expenditure, in the circular issued by the Development Department on 21st November local authorities were advised by the Secretary of State that he

also strongly recommends that in any instance in which, having regard to the standards set out in the Appendix and any previous appraisal, there is any doubt about a high block's freedom from the danger of progressive collapse, any gas supply which is still connected should be cut off, after appliances using electricity have been substituted for those operating on gas, as soon as possible, without waiting for further appraisal.
Will those local authorities who act on this advice and incur expenditure, installing electricity appliances, and who feel, on further examination, that they are not required to make further alterations, be eligible for grant? That is a question which should be raised now.
This is a matter of balance, and on the whole I certainly feel that for the Government to say, "We accept less than half of the expenditure involved here", is underrating what their responsibility is. They said in their circular that they had given very full consideration to the matter, and I know they have, in England and Wales and Scotland, but, as one who comes from an area not affected by this kind of expenditure, I feel that those local authorities landed with this kind of expenditure have a legitimate grievance if the Government only accept 40 per cent. of it, and I think that the Opposition's proposal is about the right balance.

Mr. George Willis: As one of the hon. Members representing one of the areas very much affected by this matter I have had no representations at all about the manner in which it is proposed to make the Government contribution. I should have thought that if there were a great deal of feeling about this at least the Members of Parliament would have been informed.
It seems to me that, as the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) said, this is a matter of balance; there is no principle here. The Government have accepted a responsibility, and the only point at issue—there is no vital principle here—is simply the amount of the Government's contribution. I have no doubt at all that my hon. Friend will be able to give excellent reasons—[Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite laugh, but I have no doubt about it at ail. An hon. Gentleman wants me to give some of the reasons. I could occupy a long time doing that, and it is not my business; it is my hon. Friend's job to give the reasons.
However, I should have thought there would have been a good deal more dissatisfaction on the part of the local authorities affected—

Mr. Wylie: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Edinburgh Corporation has been making very forceful representations direct to the Government about this matter?

Mr. Willis: Well, it is about time. Edinburgh Corporation can make representations to me about a vast number of things, and if it feels very deeply about this I should have thought that the right thing to do is not only to make representations to the Government but also to the Members of Parliament for the city. Till I receive such representations I will find it hard to believe that my hon. Friend did not put very good arguments when he met the local authorities and discussed this matter with them.
One does not want to go into all the pros and cons, but I can think of other things which have happened in Edinburgh. I remember a housing scheme in which balconies fell off the houses. I did not hear hon. Gentlemen coming along and asking about a 50 per cent. or 60 per cent. grant to make all the balconies on those Edinburgh houses safe. I did not hear this argument at all then.

Sir J. Gilmour: The contractors were at fault. It was nothing to do with design.

Mr. Willis: This is one of the points which arises here. The only point I am making is that, after all, this would be approved by the central authority, if not to the same extent as in this case, but I did not then hear hon. Gentlemen coming along and saying, "What about 60 per cent. for Edinburgh to examine all its balconies and make them safe?" I did not hear that at all.
Therefore, I view this new Clause with a certain amount of scepticism, particularly in view of the fact that hon. Gentlemen who represent Edinburgh are not even here to put the case. There cannot be much feeling about it if they are not even here.

Mr. William Hannan: Nor during Committee on the Bill was there any mention made of this. My recollection is that in Committee there

was no Amendment put down about this matter. It may be that there have been afterthoughts since the English Bill went through.

Mr. Willis: It is unfortunate that whenever I speak I always prompt other people to speak.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: We continually questioned the Government on the Floor of the House, and the Government told us that they were in negotiation with the local authorities about this, but they did not announce that they were going to give only 40 per cent. until about two weeks ago, when in Committee we had long gone past this point. Indeed, I think the Bill was out of Committee.

Mr. Willis: I understand. I heard hon. Gentlemen raise this at that time. I am not quarrelling with the fact that they have raised it, although I should have thought the Long Title of the Bill would have to be altered to include this.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: That is another matter.

Mr. Willis: This indicates that it is not very appropriate to this Bill, and that this new Clause has been moved as an afterthought.
The only point I wanted to make was that if there were all this dissatisfaction on the part of Edinburgh we should have had more representations from the Members of Parliament for Edinburgh. Where are they? I do not know. Why are not all the hon. Members here clamouring for justice for Edinburgh Corporation? My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Oswald) is here. I am not speaking of hon. Members on this side of the House but of hon. Members opposite. Where is the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith)? Where is the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison)?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope we are not going to have a catalogue of absentee Members. We will talk about the new Clause.

Mr. Willis: I wished only to make the point and to make it only briefly and I have not been allowed to do that—that I have not received any representations about this matter. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles seems to have received a lot of representations.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I certainly will be brief. I think that the most significant contribution made so far was the loud "Hear, hear" by the Minister, if I may say so, on a technical point, and this was one of the things I wanted to raise. Obviously, when there is a 40–60 split it is very tempting to ask, "Why not make it 50–50? Then everybody would be happy". But it is not as simple as that.
I should like the Minister to explain to me where the money is coming from. The altruistic approach we have had is most encouraging. I take it that what hon. Members opposite are saying is that they would not object to their local authorities having a reduction in some kind of grants next year provided that the money would go to the local authorities which are involved in this matter. Is that what they are saying? Is that what the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) meant? Or did he mean that the Exchequer had to find it from some other source?

Sir J. Gilmour: I simply suggested that if a mistake is made which cannot be attributed to a particular place, it is wiser and better to spread the load wider rather than put it on the local authorities particularly affected.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman could in time become a Minister if he makes such replies as that. He obviously has not answered the question. I am surprised that his hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) did not raise this specific point. Are we to understand that the North Dakota prairie dog philosophy is applying here? Is it the case that we want to encourage local authorities but whenever expenditure is incurred, through no fault of their own and through no fault of the Government, they must always look to the Scottish Office? Is this the philosophy that hon. Gentlemen are putting forward?

Mr. Gordon Campbell: For example, my constituency in the North of Scotland, which was entirely unaffected last year by the hurricane in the South of Scotland, in no way resented the money that went to restore the damage in the areas which were affected.

Mr. Brown: We have still not had a reply to the specific point whether or not all local authorities in Scotland next year will make do with less than they anticipate in rate support or any other grant to make sure that the local authorities which are involved in this expenditure have an increased contribution from the Exchequer. In the absence of any clarity from the Opposition, I can only think that, as usual, they are playing at politics.
Will the Minister say what we are thinking of in terms of cost? In Glasgow, with the usual exaggeration of the city treasurer, the cost was estimated to be about £2 million; everyone now recognises that it is more likely to be £1 million. No proper estimate was made, and there were legitimate fears at first sight that more work would have to be done than has proved to be necessary. How many local authorities are involved? What is the expenditure per head of the population to the local authorities concerned, and will the Minister give an assurance that, in the light of this genuine good will that is shared by everyone, he will look again at this matter?

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I was interested in the debate on this matter which took place on the English Bill. One or two generous tributes were paid by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright), and by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), particularly in column 598, in relation to storm damage, who made the good point that with storm damage we were dealing with remedial measures for which the Government accepted full responsibility in that they gave a handsome contribution. This cost the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) nothing; so I do not think that he should take credit for that. There we judged the needs of individual authorities and made grants accordingly.
It has been suggested that this is the way in which this assistance should be given; that we should look at the Government contribution quite apart from the proportion, to see whether there could be a differential distribution of the Government's share. That, I took it, was the somewhat crypto-ministerial argument of the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour). I agree with him that that is a perfectly sound argument, and I thought


that the way in which he replied to my hon. Friend was perfectly fair. It may be ministerial, but it is still perfectly fair. We are very willing to discuss this with the local authorities. I reaffirm what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government said. When my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State, Lord Hughes, meets local authorities—and he has offered to meet them as soon as possible—we shall discuss whether or not there should be a differential distribution of the share that has so far been provided.
Local authorities are not always as noble and generous as the hon. Member for Fife, East they may not agree with this, and it might be difficult to apply. My instinct is that it would be just if we were able to do it. I counsel the House to recognise that we do not know exactly how people will be affected, and I agree with my hon. Friend that many extravagant and silly things have been said by local authority elected members about how people will be affected. The assessment work has not yet been completed. There are in Glasgow 33 Corporation blocks of large panel construction, and they are being appraised. The hon. Member for Pollock mentioned the three—I presume in Albion Road—which are already being evacuated.
I cannot say, and no one can say, at this stage how much work will need to be done and on how many blocks. People are presuming that all the blocks will need to be repaired in a substantial, and perhaps even unnecessary, way because of the fear of a recurrence of the disaster. This must be done in a sensible way by making proper assessments.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) mentioned the question of further inspection. The man responsible for the judgment on further inspection is the consultant employed by the local authority, and it is up to the local authority to accept his opinion. A genuine error has been made in the case of one block in my constituency. The consultant's advice on one occasion was reversed on another occasion. I do not blame him: we all makes mistakes we are all human. Even the best professional man sometimes makes an error. If there are genuine

mistakes we will seek to help the local authority, but the ultimate responsibility is with the local authority. The Government cannot compel all authorities to stand aside, abdicate their responsibilities and let us step in; it would be far too great a job for central Government to do.
The job of central Government is to seek to advise, to pool the experience of authorities in Scotland and England and to try to give the best possible counsel. We do not give directions. The circular to which the hon. Gentleman referred is not a direction. It does not allow the authority to opt out of the responsibility. I very much agree with the view that when local authorities are given responsibility they must accept that there is a financial penalty if they make a mistake. Otherwise, what is the point of giving them responsibility? This is a grown-up view of local government. It is wrong that local authorities should come running to the Government whenever they get into trouble. Free agents as they are in many ways, and while they should listen to advice and to the experience of their confreres elsewhere in Scotland, they must accept ultimate responsibility for mistakes, however genuine they are.
The Government accept in principle their responsibility here. Had they been all-wise and all-knowing, and had they had all the technical advice they would have liked, the Ronan Point disaster would never have happened. The responsibility is not confined to this Government. The previous Government must accept responsibility for the way in which the industrialised building programmes was launched and supported in the early 1960s, and the previous Government should not be blamed any more than we should be blamed. This is not a party argument. It is an argument about what happens when Governments give advice and guidance, and encourage authorities to do certain things.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The Minister referred to something which he described as a mistake. We have never regarded these buildings as mistakes. When these buildings were authorised no one for a moment thought that they were not completely safe. Will the Minister tell us in respect of each of these blocks whether or not he considers that a mistake has been made?

Dr. Mabon: The hon. Gentleman is not a technical professional man, neither as I in this regard. Neither he nor I can say which blocks are or are not in need of reinforcement. We, like the local authorities, can only rely on advice. When I say "a mistake", it was a mistake of design, a failure to appreciate the risk of progressive collapse of load-bearing panel construction following damage from explosion.
There have been arguments in the technical press ever since Ronan Point about the degree of pressure resulting from explosion and whether or not it is tolerable. In the blocks that we are studying in Scotland we are dealing with a large number of systems and variants of systems. But the one particular block affected was only one particular form of construction with only one application in Scotland, and that was not an exact copy. Therefore, it is not easy to appreciate the technicalities.
We are not yet out of the wood. I counsel hon. Members to be patient with the authorities. They are having a difficult time, as are we centrally, in making sure that the preventive work is carried out properly. I am sure the House would be annoyed if either the Minister or the local authorities were to rush things and come to snap decisions about this difficult problem. Nothing in the procedures for the submission for approval of subsidy-earning housing developments, the building regulations, the codes of practice or suggestions for the use of industrialised building compel a local authority to adopt a particular form of construction. Therefore, they do not relieve it of its responsibility as the authority exercising a function to provide houses. This is the principal difference between Hurricane Q and Ronan Point.
Nobody has argued, apart from one authority in Scotland—namely, Greenock—that it is entirely the Government's responsibility and that 100 per cent. grant must be paid. But if the Government accept some responsibility and if, as I am arguing, the local authorities have some responsibility, surely some responsibility must be borne by the building industry and also the professions associated with it. The Government do not make the contracts. The contracts are made between local authorities and contractors. We have asked local authorities to con-

sider their contractual position vis-à-vis contractors who may be involved. It is still to be decided in discussions with the local authorities what items of incidental expenditure will quality. But I assure the House that it will be safe to assume that the removal of gas will qualify.
It would be wrong of me to go on to agree with the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles that if an authority feels it has a case in law on the contract and goes to court and loses the action, it should be able to come to the Government to ask for partial relief in the payment of its legal costs. I do not see the logic of that. If the responsibility of entering into a contract lies with the local authority and if it wants to challenge the contract in the courts, then it is right and proper not only that the authority enjoys the benefits of a successful action but that it suffers the penalty of an unsuccessful one.

Mr. David Steel: The only reason I raised the matter was to seek clarification since the Department's own circular refers to "such other expenditure as may be agreed to be reasonably incidental". I thought it was something which should be understood. However, the Minister has given his answer.

Dr. Mabon: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I have no doubt that the matter will be raised in the discussions with the local authorities, and no doubt the fact that the hon. Member has raised the point and that I have given my reply will be useful to them in understanding our thinking on the matter. But I do not see the logic of pursuing the issue to the point of saying that they must get their legal costs.
In all the arguments which have been deployed hon. Members opposite must remember past practice and consider how they would be placed in a similar situation if ever they were returned to power. I can assure the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) that this Government will still be in power next year, so that he need have no worries about that. I hope that we shall see the matter to a successful conclusion.
7.45 p.m.
As for the Edinburgh blocks, I am not aware of the precise number involved.


There are still blocks at Sighthill which are empty, but as yet we have no proposals for remedial works. I could not comment on the figures given by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) about the impact of the situation in Edinburgh. I was then asked by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn whether it would apply to all blocks. My answer is that not all blocks need strengthening.
It is sensible that when the local authorities meet my noble Friend they should be willing to look at the question of altering the flat rate suggestion to a differential rate. It is a matter for persuasion because many adjoining authorities in Scotland will not be affected. It is unfair to leave out those authorities which, probably for the best reasons, have embarked on high-rise buildings because of shortage of land and so on. Perhaps the local authorities will look at the matter, and the Government are prepared to accept a variation of the decision.
The new Clause is unnecessary since we have the right to make extra-statutory payments. But, however it is varied, this is still public expenditure; it is still to be accommodated within the budgets. The Government do not wish to witness a falling off in house building. We accept that the Government's share of responsibility for the design is the same share as the equivalent of the current value of the subsidy paid on new building. We accept that additional responsibility. The subsidy on new building is roughly 40 per cent. That is why we have arrived at this figure. There is no logic in choosing a figure of 60 per cent. without breaching the principles of responsibility which must be shared between the Government and the local authorities.
I end by saying that, although we have mentioned two authorities concerned to share responsibility, I pose the question to the House: is there not a third? As Members of Parliament concerned with the public purse, whether it be related to ratepayers or taxpayers, should we not ask the industry to look again at its part in this matter to see whether it should not honour, in some ex gratin way, its responsibility to local authorities, which have been good customers for many years and which have taken professional ad

vice from contractors, from outside consultants and from the Government, and yet have come upon this evil day.

Mr. Mick Buchanan-Smith: We are grateful to the Minister of State for his sympathetic attitude, but at the same time we are disappointed that he has moved no further from the position that was taken by his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government in an earlier debate on this subject.
We appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is in process of discussion with the local authorities. We hope that out of those discussions the matter of money may be adjusted in accordance with the wishes of the local authorities. We welcome that, and we also welcome the fact that, the Government's mind is open as to the way in which the money should be apportioned. This still leaves the Government bearing only 40 per cent. of the total cost over the country as a whole as against the 60 per cent. which they are to require from the local authorities. Although the Government are prepared to co-operate in the administration of the grant in seeing that it is as flexible as possible, the Minister today has not moved in any way on the main matter from the stance adopted by his right hon Friend.
In the latter part of his speech the Minister mentioned the co-operation that he was hoping to receive from the building industry and those responsible for the construction of these flats. Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that, even though they have a liability, either legal or moral, it still leaves them with a very big burden, and it is that burden on the local authorities which concerns us? Whether or not it is a matter for litigation, at the end of the day a substantial amount will have to be met by the local authorities. Incidentally, very few building contracts go to what might be termed legal litigation. Normally any dispute is dealt with by a process of arbitration. That is the established way of dealing with such matters.
Earlier in his remarks, the hon. Gentleman spoke of mistakes. We do not intend for a moment to attempt to apportion blame to this Government or to previous Governments. We are not think-of that. What has happened in terms of


design and so on is past history. The fact remains, however, that the mistake was not the fault of the local authorities. They accepted advice based on the best codes of building practice known at the time, and they have become the victims of unfortunate circumstances in that they will have to find the major amendment to put right the mistakes which has occurred. What concerns us is the size of their contribution in relation to the responsibility which they have, and it is the amount of money and how it is to be found to which I want to direct my remarks.
Although it is many months since the Ronan Point disaster, it is unfortunate that we are still not in full possession of the facts. I do not blame the hon. Gentleman for that. There is a great number of blocks to look at and a tremendous amount of work to be done before we can know the facts. But we have had considerable time, and we do not want to let much more time pass.
In an earlier debate, the point was made from the benches opposite that there was an impression amongst local authorities that the Government would be more generous and that now that it is realised that the Government will give only 40 per cent., the fear is that local authorities may hold back in completing surveys and carrying out remedial works. I hope that that will not happen, but that was the suggestion which came from an hon. Member opposite who represents an area which is particularly concerned with high tower flats. The Government having announced their intention to contribute 40 per cent. to the cost of remedial works, I hope that it will not mean that any local authority will hold back in carrying out such works.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: There is no Ministerial authority for ever having said 75 per cent. at any time—or, indeed, anything in excess of 40 per cent. The authority which hesitates to carry out remedial work because of the Government's 40 per cent. grant will lose more in rent by not doing the work than it would by embarking on some sort of phased programme.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I accept that last point, but that does not apply to blocks which are in occupation. When the hon. Gentleman says that, he must be

referring to blocks under construction or those which are not yet occupied, in which case, the longer the delay, the longer it is until the authority concerned can get tenants into them.
The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) implied that we raised this matter as one of great principle. That is not our object. We raise it as a purely practical point of how the cost is to be apportioned. If we raised it as a matter of pure principle, we should have said that the Government ought to bear 100 per cent. of the cost, as the Minister of State acknowledged in his speech. We are not asking for that. We believe that the cost must be shared, and we are not treating this as a great matter of principle. It is our aim to get to the practical point of trying to apportion responsibility and, having done that, to see how the money to meet the cost of carrying out remedial works is to be found.
The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East said that local authorities in Scotland were not concerned about it—

Mr. Willis: I did not say that.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: He said that they were not showing their concern.

Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman must not misquote me. I said that I had heard nothing from Edinburgh Corporation, and I did not think that any other hon. Members had heard from Edinburgh Corporation and that, if anyone had, he was not here to say so.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: That must reflect on what Edinburgh Corporation thinks that the right hon. Gentleman will raise in this House. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison), on the other hand, is renowned for the way in which he takes up the building problems of his constituents. On 20th June, in answer to a Question which sought to discover the size of the problem, we were told that Edinburgh has 14 blocks likely to be affected, Cumbernauld has 15, Greenock has 14, Lanark County has 12, and Glasgow has 58.
Hon. Members who represent Glasgow constituencies are aware of the great concern which is felt in the Glasgow authority. The hon. Member for Glasgow,


Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) said that there were some exaggerated statements in the early stages. According to a report in the Glasgow Herald on 7th June, the convenor of the housing committee said:
I regard a 40 per cent. grant by the Government as quite inadequate. All this extra expense stems from the Government encouraging industrialised system-building in the first place, and the corporation following Government advice on remedial measures after the Ronan Point disaster.
That shows the concern which is felt in Glasgow, and the figure given following that meeting of the Glasgow housing committee was £1·4 million. That certainly is a substantial sum, and it shows the concern which is felt there.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) said, there is concern not only about the expense of strengthening but about the trouble and inconvenience caused to families who have to be removed while it is being done. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) spoke of the Albion blocks, as did the Minister of State, where something like 285 families are likely to have to move as a result of the remedial action which is necessary. We look at the problem not only from the point of view of the cost but from that of inconvenience to those who have to move to comply with what is necessary for the remedial work to be done.
The real point is to discover from what accounts the money is to be paid. If the Government are to pay only 40 per cent., and 60 per cent. must come from the local authorities, that must be paid for in certain ways. The first possibility is that it is paid out of rents and put upon the tenants of the authorities affected, in which case it will fall heavily on those areas which, through no choice of their own but for reasons of land shortage, have had to build these high flats. If it does not fall on the tenants, it will have to fall on the ratepayers, despite the fact that, in March of this year, in Circular 15/69 the Government urged local authorities not to allow their housing revenue accounts to go into deficit. They will go into deficit increasingly if a large amount of expenditure on remedial action is to go on the housing accounts and if it cannot be passed on to the ratepayers and others.
8.0 p.m.
We, on this side, are concerned because the problem of the high tower flats is concentrated in the areas of particular local authorities on which it bears very heavily indeed. If the local authorities in those areas are to bear so high a proportion of the expense, it will fall either on the tenants or on the ratepayers in those areas. We are concerned about these people, and that is why we have put down the new Clause.
Earlier, the Minister said that no definite assurance was given about how the cost was to be apportioned. In the debate on 20th February on the Rate Support Grant my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn was chided by the Minister of State for raising the question of remedial action in strengthening high tower blocks. The Minister said:
Perhaps we shall decide it in the storm damage way."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1969; Vol. 778, c. 840.]
This is the kind of encouragement that local authorities had: that the Government would be more sympathetic towards the problem than they had been. This has concerned local authorities.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to point out that storm damage grant was awarded to those authorities that were affected, and this is a point still to be discussed. As a Minister, I have gone as far as I can in indicating my preference to be discussed between Lord Hughes and the authorities. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell me whether he favours a differential arrangement or a flat-rate arrangement?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The whole point of having a discussion with local authorities is to get their points of view. Local authorities have not put any particular points of view on this to me. I shall be interested to hear from the Minister what he has heard.
But this is not the point at issue. The point is whether the Government will give 40 per cent. or the 60 per cent that we believe they ought to give. We feel that the Government are treating this problem as an ordinary housing problem. The Minister of State has said this tonight and the Minister of Housing and Local Government said that on 18th June. We do not believe that this problem is in the


ordinary run of housing problems and should be met in the way in which should be met in the way in which they are normally met. We believe that this is an abnormal situation which should be met in an exceptional way. As the Government have totally failed to grasp and realise the exceptional nature of the

situation, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the new Clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 107, Noes 142.

Division No.300.]
AYES
[8.4 p.m.


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Pounder, Rafton


Bessell, Peter
Gurden, Harold
Prior, J. M. L.


Biffen, John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Pym, Francis


Biggs-Davison, John
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hawkins, Paul
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Body, Richard
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Royle, Anthony


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Russell, Sir Ronald


Brewis, John
Hiley, Joseph
Scott, Nicholas


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Sharples, Richard


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Holland, Philip
Silvester, Frederick


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Hornby, Richard
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Speed, Keith


Carlisle, Mark
Iremonger, T. L.
Stainton, Keith


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Kitson, Timothy
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Chataway, Christopher
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Stodart, Anthony


Clark, Henry
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Tapsell, Peter


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Lane, David
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Corfield, F. V.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Costain, A. P.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Tilney, John


Currie, G. B. H,
Lubbock, Eric
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Dean, Paul
MacArthur, Ian
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Walters, Dennis


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Maude, Angus
Ward, Dame Irene


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Mawby, Ray
Weatherill, Bernard


Doughty, Charles
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
White-law, Rt. Hn. William


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wiggin, A. W


Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Monro, Hector
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Errington, Sir Eric
Montgomery, Fergus
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Eyre, Reginald
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Worsley, Marcus


Farr, John
Murton, Oscar
Wright, Esmond


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Wylie, N. R.


Foster, Sir John
Page, Graham (Crosby)



Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Goodhart, Philip
Peel, John
Mr. Anthony Grant and


Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Mr. Humphrey Atkins.




NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Eadie, Alex
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)


Alldritt, Walter
Edelman, Maurice
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Atkins, Ronald (Preaton, N.)
Ensor, David
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Faulds, Andrew
Kenyon, Clifford


Bidwell, Sydney
Fernyhough, E.
Lawson, George


Binns, John
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Leadbitter, Ted


Blackburn, F.
Forrester, John
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Fowler, Gerry
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)


Booth, Albert
Freeson, Reginald
Lee, John (Reading)


Boy den, James
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Gregory, Arnold
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Buchan, Norman
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Lomas, Kenneth


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Loughlin, Charles


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hannan, William
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Carmichael, Neil
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Haseldine, Norman
MacColl, James


Chapman, Donald
Heffer, Eric S.
MacDermot, Niall


Concannon, J. D.
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Dalyell, Tam
Hooley, Frank
Mackenzie, Gregor (Ruthergien)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Maclennan, Robert


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Huckfield, Leslie
Manuel, Archie


Delargy, Hugh
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Mapp, Charles


Dewar, Donald
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Marks, Kenneth


Dobson, Ray
Hunter, Adam
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Doig, Peter
Hynd, John
Maxwell, Robert


Driberg, Tom
Iremonger, T. L.
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert




Mendelson, John
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Millan, Bruce
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Wallace, George


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Watkins. David (Consett)


Moonman, Eric
Sheldon, Robert
Wellbeloved, James


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Whitaker, Ben


Ogden, Eric
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Wilkins, W. A.


Orbach, Maurice
Silverman, Julius
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Orme, Stanley
Slater, Joseph
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Oswald, Thomas
Small, William
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Spriggs, Leslie
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Paget, R. T.
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Peart, Ht. Hn. Fred
Symonds, J. B.
Woof, Robert


Pentland, Norman
Taverne, Dick



Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Thornton, Ernest
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Price, William (Rugby)
Tinn, James
Mr. Ioan L. Evans and Mr. Joseph Harper.


Rankin, John
Tuck, Raphael



Rees, Merlyn
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

New Clause No. 3

HOUSING ACCOMMODATION AND CAMPING SITES IN RESPECT OF TRAVELLING HOUSEHOLDS

(1) It shall be the duty of every local authority to consider the needs of travelling households in their district with respect to the provision of housing accommodation and of properly serviced camping sites.

(2) Every local authority shall from time to time cause to be made such a survey or inspection of their district as may be necessary for the performance of the duty imposed on them by this section.—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): With this Clause I suggest that we discuss Amendment No. 36, in 'Title, line 17, after tenancy; ', insert:
'to make provision of housing accommodation and camping sites in respect of travelling households:'.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: At the end of last year the Liaison Committee for Scotland of the Gipsies and Travelling People's Council raised with Scottish Members the problem of the harassment of travellers and the difficulties they had in finding places to settle. Many of us recognise the difficulties thrown up by this intractable problem, but it is easy and perhaps convenient to forget them because in relation to Scotland as a whole these problems may not be so great.
The matter has been more closely drawn to our attention recently by the census carried out by the Scottish Office of travelling families in Scotland. I pay tribute to the work of the Scottish Office and to the work of those involved

in the local authorities. I am glad to see the Minister of State genuinely smiling for the first time this evening. This encourages us. All of us who have a knowledge of local authorities appreciate the tremendous amount of work which went into the preparation of this census and into the analysis which was carried out by the Scottish Office. The results thrown up greatly increase our knowledge of the problems of travelling families.
8.15 p.m.
In March it was found that 1,500 people in 300 families had to follow the roads in Scotland throughout the year. Those 300 families contain 650 children under 16. Nearly 30 per cent. of those families live in tents. In the winter time, there is a concentration of these families in particular areas—in Lanarkshire, as the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) knows, and in Perthshire, where I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) has been concerned.
It is important that the census should be kept up-to-date so that we have knowledge of the dimensions of the problem. Thus, subsection (2) enjoins the local authority "from time to time" to
cause to be made such a survey or inspection of their district as may be necessary for the performance of the duty imposed on them by this section.
I welcome the Department's proposal to conduct another census in mid-August. That will provide details of the summer picture and fill the gaps in the March census.
As well as recording the number of families, the age groupings of children, whether the families were living in tents or caravans, and whether they were on


permanent or temporary sites, the census inquired of the families whether they wanted to continue travelling. Under 20 per cent. of the families who answered the questions wanted to continue travelling. Eighty per cent. wanted to settle in one spot. Four out of five of those who wanted to settle stated a preference to settle in a house rather than in a caravan on a site.
In Circular 38/1969 the Scottish Development Department urged local authorities to take temporary action in regard to such families—first, in the matter of housing accommodation, and, second, in the provision of caravan sites. The new Clause would impose a definite duty on local authorities to consider the needs of travelling households. Consonant with our support of the Government's urging local authorities to consider the provision of temporary accommodation and also to seek a permanent solution to the problems of travelling families, we seek to impose a duty on local authorities to consider the needs of travelling households, first, in respect of housing accommodation—this is important, since four out of five families who want to settle want to do so in a house—and second, we seek to impose on local authorities the duty to provide camping sites.
I accept that the question of the provision of camping sites may not be so great in the long term. As the Circular points out, local authorities already have power under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act, 1960, and the Countryside Act, 1967, to provide caravan sites. In addition to caravan sites, what is important is the provision of properly serviced camp sites with hard standings, where needed, with toilet accommodation and washing facilities, because 30 per cent. of these families live in tents.
This awkward problem poses many questions for local authorities. It poses deep social problems in regard to the families. It poses problems of education. Difficult though the problem is and small in relation to the total population of Scotland, this is a problem which we in this House must not brush aside. Therefore, by drawing attention to it by means of this Clause I hope that we shall have shown that we are concerned about it. At the same time,

I hope the Government take the opportunity to say what they believe can be done permanently to provide for these families, and if they need to supplement the powers which they already have, I hope they will take advantage of the Clause to provide a permanent solution.

Mr. James Hamilton: I welcome this proposed Clause, although with reservations. It is very easy to become emotional about this problem. As a Member of Parliament I have been bedevilled with this sort of problem in my constituency, where these travellers move from village to village, and the police have been very tolerant with them. Representations have been made by myself, by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) and others to the Scottish Office, which has been most attentive.
I am sure that the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) is aware that local authorities already have the power to provide the necessary sites and to service them for these travellers. However, when these people are asked whether they are prepared to use the sites we find that the answer is invariably in the negative. These people come to Bellshill frequently. It is very easy to suggest that we in such places should be Christian and tolerant, provided that they are not in one's own back garden. When one is bedevilled with this kind of situation, one's feeling is likely to be quite different.
I have received large deputations on this subject. Only the other week there was a television programme pin-pointing the sort of thing that was happening in Bellshill. Once these people are moved from Bellshill they go to another village in my constituency, Mossend, where they camp beside a church. Representations were made to me by local residents because people going to this place of worship found all sorts of things going on and heard language which one would not expect from Christians. The worst feature of all is that these people were leaving human dirt in these areas. This is a fact with which I am personally conversant. When these travellers were moved from Mossend they went to Bothwellhaugh which is also in my constituency.
It will be appreciated that when one is directly concerned with this problem one does not become emotional about it but looks at it in a realistic fashion. I welcome this proposed Clause so long as local authorities are prepared to use the existing legislation under which they are able to prepare camp sites. The trouble is that there is no guarantee that the travellers will use these sites.
It is easy to suggest that these people should be given special consideration for housing. It is not so difficult in areas which do not have the housing problems that exist in some parts of my County of Lanark, including Rutherglen. In parts of Lanark some married couples have been waiting seven or eight years before they can get a house. Are these travellers to be considered before people who have been on the housing list for six or seven years? If one is prepared to say that they should be given preference, then one is obviously running into tremendous difficulties. I should like to know whether the Government are prepared to finance the local authorities to construct these camp sites and to offer subsidies for housing. If so, I shall be in favour of this new Clause.
The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns referred to the problem of schooling. This is a serious problem because the children of these travellers move from one school to another and we have to give special consideration to this fact. If they are prepared to stay in certain localities where people are tolerant—particularly the police and the local authorities—the local authorities in those areas must receive special consideration from the Government. I therefore ask the Minister of State to answer these questions to my satisfaction before I can support this Clause.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) reminded us that this Bill deals primarily with large issues but that that fact should not be an excuse for turning our backs on the very real problem of the travelling families in Scotland.
I have a lot of sympathy with the views expressed by the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton). It is very easy to become emotional and

carried away by the plight in which one sees many of these families living. I would add to what he said that if the behaviour of some of the travelling families is as reprehensible as he suggests—and I do not dispute it—that may be the result largely of the pattern of life which these people lead. Their movement is not always voluntary. Sometimes a movement is imposed upon them by people pushing them away and harrying them about. There is very often a wish to get rid of the travelling family and the small encampment which can be a nuisance and very often is an eyesore. But that should not cause us to say that nothing can be done about the problem. or that travelling families should not be helped. They need help, and I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for moving the new Clause and calling attention to a big human problem.
8.30 p.m.
My hon. Friend referred to the survey conducted on 19th March. I am very glad that it was carried out, for it produced four significant findings. First, it revealed a population of travelling families in Scotland of about 1,500 people, which is about 300 families. Second, it showed that two out of three of those families have children under 16. This points to the related problem of educating those children as they move from place to place. Third, the survey showed that the families tend, as we knew already, to settle in the winter and to travel in the summer. Therefore, it is right that there should be another survey in August so that we have a balanced picture of the whole scene. It is possible that the March survey underestimated the number of families, and I am glad to think that the second survey may remedy that and give us a better impression of the true picture.
Finally, the survey showed that about eight out of 10 of the families say that they want to stop travelling. This means that there are 240 families that wish to settle permanently somewhere, and the figure may be higher if the March survey under-estimated the number of travelling families. One presumes that those 240 families wish to take up a normal settled life, living in a house, with neighbours beside them.
Much of the problem is centred on Perthshire and the House may be in-


terested to know what has been happening there to try to cope with the problem. As the hon. Member for Bothwell reminded us, local authorities already have quite substantial powers to provide suitable camping sites. I welcome the decision of the Joint County Council of Perth and Kinross to acquire a piece of land near Perth which will provide a permanent camping site for travelling people. However, the acquisition of the land may take a long time.
The local problem now, therefore, is to provide a temporary site which can be in use before the next winter, when the families settle down again. One is being provided at Ruthvenfield in my constituency. The work being done on the site is a remarkable demonstration of the humane and understanding care which many people have for their fellow creatures in difficulty. A Church of Scotland Minister, the Rev. Dennis Sutherland, has special responsibility for travelling people. He and a local welfare group are clearing the site and building a road. The work is due to be finished tomorrow. Among their helpers are seven boys fom the Easterhouse area of Glasgow, who have been giving their time willingly and generously. They are also giving their energies. I believe that they shifted 400 tons of rubble in one day last week.
The group does not consist only of people coming in to help. In charge of the group is a travelling man, the Secretary of the Scottish Gipsies and Travellers Council. Lord Hughes visited the scheme last Thursday, and I am sure that his visit was greatly appreciated.
This voluntary work is splendid, but voluntary effort can achieve only a limited amount. A special responsibility should rest on the local authorities. I believe that the Perth Town Council and the County Council are deeply aware of this. I have already spoken about their provision of a permanent site. There is also a need for houses for those travellers who wish to settle down.
Two points must not be lost sight of. One is the need to distinguish between the genuine travelling family and the fellow-traveller, the bogus claimants who are not travelling families in the true sense of the word.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: I should be interested to know what the

hon. Gentleman means by a bogus traveller. Could he define this a little more precisely?

Mr. MacArthur: What I mean is that there has been a certain overlap between the travelling families and itinerant people of a different kind, such as travelling furniture buyers from Ireland in vans, who remain in Perthshire at this time of the year and try to cash in on the sentiment and feeling there is for the genuine Scottish-based travelling family.
The second point which must be borne in mind is that one should not give so much priority at a time always of housing difficulty that travelling families unduly jump the queue. It is right that they should have their own places on the housing waiting lists but there is no case for giving them undue preference so that residents in a town are moved down the list because of the sympathy we naturally feel for these travellers. What is important is that they should be treated equally with other people, and I welcome the fact that, in Perth, travelling families are put on the local waiting list in exactly the same way as any other family. Indeed, rather more than 20 of the families have been re-housed in this way. But that is not the pattern generally followed, I understand.
For too long, these travelling families have been ignored. They have been harried and pushed about and, although they have for some time given rise to the sort of problems outlined by the hon. Member for Bothwell, it is right to take note of the difficulty they have been facing, and we should recognise that many of them who are presenting a sizeable social problem now wish to settle down among their fellow men. It is right that we should help them to do that.

Mr. James Davidson: I support the new Clause, but with certain reservations. I have taken an interest in this problem for some time. I first wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, on 5th February, 1968, which is well over a year ago. In his reply he said:
As I expect you know, Mr. Lubbock's Bill is likely to be a temporary measure only. But if and when it can be shown that we have a problem in Scotland of sufficient


magnitude to justify legislation, we can consider dealing with it in a separate Scottish Bill.
Shortly after that letter, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) introduced a Bill—later, the Caravan Sites Act—which applied to England and Wales and not to Scotland. I put down an Amendment to try to make it applicable to Scotland and perhaps it is a little surprising, in view of the enthusiasm today, that I did not get any support for it, except from Members of my own party. On Second Reading, I said:
I cannot quite make out the reasons for the opposition to including Scotland. I believe that most of the opposition comes from the local authorities, not from the Scottish Office itself. There is no real basis for it. It appears to me to be just simply a kind of inertia, a reluctance to take on new responsibilities, a desire to be left undisturbed.
I went on to say:
I disagree very strongly with the view which has apparently been expressed by the County Councils Association. I do not believe it has looked at the matter very thoroughly, and I shall do my best to see, before any permanent legislation is introduced, that Scottish counties do look into the matter.
I made a point which can well be made again today in relation to this new Clause. I said:
The Protection from Eviction Act. 1964, applies to Scotland. Considerable anomalies may be raised in the position of caravan dwellers. They will be protected in England but they will not have protection in Scotland. My hon. Friends and I believe that permanent legislation could be introduced apposite to Scottish conditions.
I repeat that I believe that the reluctance to include Scotland in the Bill is really due to inertia and lack of interest among Scottish local authorities, when we have clear evidence of Scottish conditions which will show the Scottish Office that Scotland should be included."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1968; Vol. 759, c. 1986–9.]
Since then, earlier this year a survey was conducted with the good will of the noble Lord whom I have mentioned. Its results were interesting. I have to admit that my own county of Aberdeen is not one of those particularly troubled by this problem, which is confined mainly to Lanarkshire, Perthshire and Renfrew-shire. But that is because—and this is the important point—for some time the local authority in Aberdeenshire has taken the view that the travelling people should be integrated into the community. It has pursued that policy all along the

line with considerable success. It has set an example which other authorities troubled with the problem of travelling families without proper sites should follow. Authorities should make a stern and determined attempt to integrate these people into the community.
I have certain reservations about the new Clause because it is extremely vaguely worded. It proposes to impose a duty on local authorities, but it does nothing which is not already done by the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act, 1960. For that reason, in its present form the Clause might be something of an embarrassment, because it is a Clause without definitions and without specific provisions.
The Government surveys are much to be commended. I understand that another is to be carried out in August, and that should give more complete figures. One interesting point which emerges from the surveys is that the vast majority of the travelling families want to settle down. Only a tiny proportion want to go on travelling indefinitely. The large proportion want to settle down, to be integrated, to send their children to school and to feel that they have become part of the community.
In this connection, there may be a need to encourage local authorities to introduce or devise some type of intermediate housing, as is done in Aberdeenshire, where travelling families may get used to the idea of living on a settled site in one place before moving into accommodation of the standard of that allocated to normal applicants for local authority housing. I say that in no spirit of disparagement. If a family has followed a tradition of travelling for decades, or centuries, it is obviously a big step for it suddenly to enter the community and live in permanent housing to which it has not yet adapted its way of life.
There is an interim need for the police to be encouraged to exercise leniency, particularly in respect of the Trespass (Scotland) Act, 1865, until the problem is more adequately dealt with. There have been occasions when travelling families have been moved on in the middle of the night, in bad weather and so on. This is unnecessary adherence to the letter of the law and in certain areas the police should be encouraged to show leniency in this respect.
The travellers who came to see me raised another matter, which was of minor importance. When they apply for local authority housing, it sometimes happens that when the news comes through that they are on the short list, or are likely to get a house, they cannot be found because they have moved on. A special supplementary register with a forwarding address, so that a travelling family may be contacted if it has applied for local authority housing, is needed, so that if it moved on, it does not lose the house by the authority's failure to be able to contact it.
These are genuine considerations which were raised with me by the travelling families, and I hope that the Minister of State will take them into account, both in his reply tonight and in the future Scottish Office policy towards travelling families in Scotland.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Lubbock: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) for reminding the House that at the time of the Caravan Sites Bill last year he sought to extend its application to Scotland. At that time I, too, wrote to the Scottish Office to find out its view. I wrote to the Minister of State, and, apart from sending me a copy of the letter from Lord Shepherd, already quoted by my hon. Friend, he said:
We are, of course, very ready to look at any evidence which you may have in relation to Scotland.
I did not have much evidence at the time, it was not available. As a result of this study it seems that all the information on which legislation might be based is now in the hands of the Scottish Office. I hope that we shall not have something as vaguely worded as this new Clause. As the Minister of State rightly said, what we need ultimately, as we cannot apply the caravan sites Measure to Scotland, is a separate Act dealing with the position in a comprehensive manner. We shall need to impose duties on local authorities, rather than merely give them powers to do certain things, which as my hon. Friend has said, they can already be doing under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act, 1960.
It could be argued that they have the power not only to provide sites but also to carry out any additional surveys that

may be necessary. Clause 24(2) of the Act says:
…a local authority shall have power to do anything appearing to them desirable in connection with the provision of such sites …".
That would include the surveys mentioned. I hope that, armed with this information, the Scottish Office will be fairly prompt in introducing legislation to cope with this problem. I suggest that it should apply the same kind of responsibilities to local authorities in Scotland as we have done in England and Wales in the Caravan Sites Act 1968, and that at the same time it should clear up the powers which local authorities have there, which are far more extensive than the Highways Act 1959, and other provisions dealing with the occupation of land by gipsies in England and Wales.
As my hon. Friend has said, the Trespass (Scotland) Act 1865 is being applied extremely harshly in certain areas, particularly in the county of Lanarkshire, where the police are exercising their powers under that Act in a manner which most of us would think rather unreasonable.

Mr. James Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman can take it from me, because I do not want the good name of Lanarkshire to be besmirched in any way, that the authorities and the police there have been extraordinarily tolerant with these people.

Mr. Lubbock: That may be the hon. Gentleman's opinion, but it is certainly not that of the travelling people, who have come down here to see some hon. Members. No doubt they came down to see the hon. Member. It was represented to me by those who came that in some circumstances—I am not saying invariably—the police had used these powers rather too harshly. Perhaps the Minister of State can comment on that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting rather wide of the debate on the new Clause, which deals with housing. I was trying to give him a little latitude but he has taken it too far.

Mr. Lubbock: I mentioned it only because one or two other hon. Gentlemen had referred to this Act. We cannot entirely divorce the provision of accommodation for the travelling people from the power which local authorities may


have to deal with the unauthorised occupation of land.
The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) spoke about the genuine and bogus travellers. I sincerely hope that the Scottish Office will make no such distinction. It would be highly invidious, and very difficult, to ask local authorities to make any kind of judgment as between genuine and bogus travellers. It would be uncivilised and unfair to sections of the travelling people if we were to make any attempt to distinguish between them in this way. It is like people who say that we should do everything possible for people of Romany blood and nothing for those who have no such blood in their veins or who have adopted the travelling life in recent years. I hope that that point will not be pursued and that, whatever duties we lay upon them, local authorities in Scotland will cater for the needs of all travelling people and not merely for the needs of a small section.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West rightly said that the vast majority of these people want to settle down on sites and send their children to school. He thinks that this would best be done by providing intermediate housing. That is one solution which, in England and Wales, has been put forward by Hampshire. But we cannot lay down a hard and fast rule. What we can say is that our experience shows that travelling people who have lived in tents are generally willing to go into this kind of halfway accommodation, but that those who possess substantial assets, like caravans and lorries which they use in the pursuance of their business, do not wish to go into intermediate accommodation because it means disposing of those assets which are their means of earning a livelihood. Therefore, I hope that whatever solution is adopted in Scotland, it will not be too rigid and that it will allow local authorities to choose between the two solutions.
Last year, the associations of local authorities in Scotland pretended that there was no problem. They did not believe that legislation was necessary, and they resisted any suggestion that the Scottish Office might be involved in this matter. But, after the publication of this Report, which shows that the proportion

of travelling people to total population is as high in Scotland as it is in England and Wales, there is a very substantial case, particularly when one takes into account the under-remuneration which I believe is mentioned in the Report.
I therefore hope that the Scottish Office, following this debate and the publication of the survey, will promptly initiate discussions with the local authority associations in Scotland, and that we shall have a comprehensive Bill in the next Session dealing with the subject.

Mr. John Rankin: I think I can say that all my hon. Friends are thoroughly seized of the problem which we are considering. There has been some criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton), but those of us who know the area to which he referred and the problems which are created for him and for those who live there will appreciate what he said.
I have been drawn to my feet by one or two suggestions from the hon. Members for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) and Orpington (Mr. Lubbock). We are presently considering a Bill dealing with housing in Scotland. As a Glasgow Member—and Glasgow has 80,000 people on the waiting list—I know that any suggestion about easing the regulations governing the allocation of houses to people who need them must be considered with great care. In this Bill we have been doing everything possible to tighten up the regulations governing the construction of houses, and the repeal—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The new Clause does not deal with regulations for the construction of houses. It deals with itinerant travellers.

Mr. Rankin: I realise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I was treading on thin ice, like the two hon. Members before me, but I thought that it would bear me—only one person—when it had already carried two. All I wanted to say is that from the remarks which I have just heard, there seemed to be a tendency to ease the regulations governing the construction of these temporary houses for dispossessed persons.
I welcome any step that will help them, but it would have to be taken most carefully lest it weaken some of the extra


precautions which we have been taking, in the process of putting the Bill on the Statute Book, to make houses of a better type for those who are now waiting on them in Scotland but do not belong to this section of dispossessed people in our country.
We have every sympathy with them and we want to do our best for them—

Mr. James Davidson: I think that the hon. Member has slightly misinterpreted me. If I may give an example of what the local authority in Aberdeenshire has been doing, I referred to the intermediate—not temporary—housing. The local authority is merely using partly renovated houses, which would otherwise have been condemned as temporary accommodation, of the type to which I referred.

Mr. Rankin: Very well. I will not pursue that. At the same time, nevertheless, a permanent place in the housing structure would be given to this inferior type of housing. That can become a danger to the housing future of a city like Glasgow, where there is a list of 80,000 people all waiting for houses. I leave it at that. It is simply a warning. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister of State may have a word in support of what I have said.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I much appreciate the comments which have been made. If I may say so without offence to anyone, I thought the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) put his finger best on the problem. This is not the kind of subject which should be solved in a Bill of this kind. It is of such a substantial and complex nature that it deserves a solution much more comprehensive than the rather innocent little new Clause on which this necessary but extensive debate has been held.
The hon. Member for Orpington has somewhat inherited the mantle of the late Norman Dodds—a fine mantle of a fine man—and has kept up the arguments. I remember being here during the passage of the English Bill when this was discussed. The hon. Member knows that the Government were concerned about it and made a takeover, which he welcomed. I shall not comment on the position regarding England and Wales.
At the time when we had discussions, we in Scotland were genuinely of the

view that we did not have a problem. We had had no representations apart from those of the hon. Member and my former hon. Friend Norman Dodds, whose death we all regretted at such an early age and who had campaigned for such a long time.
I say right away to the hon. Member for Orpington that there is no intention on our part in Scotland to try to classify the travellers and give preference over one section as against another. I am sure that the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) did not imply that in what he said. He may have mentioned that certain people, in coming to Scotland on business, may want to get in on the census. That would be quite proper. They are not in that sense the people to whom we are referring here.
9.0 p.m.
The Scottish Committee on Travellers—and I will give particular mention to Miss Helen Fullerton, Mr. Charles Douglas and the Rev. Denis Sutherland—have worked with us in the Scottish Office very much since this matter was raised on the Floor of the House by different hon. Members including the hon. Gentleman the Member for Orpington and also my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) who is very concerned about this matter, and asked us, the House may remember, to carry out some kind of survey.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Orpington is slightly wrong when he says we have all the facts. We have not. The census of March has revealed some very interesting facts about the travellers. For example, the number of families living in tents in Scotland is 30 per cent. as compared with 4 per cent. in England and Wales. Perhaps that leads on obviously to the next fact, that the numbers of persons wanting to settle down in permanent homes is 80 per cent. in Scotland, and there are only 20 per cent. who wish to continue travelling. But we do not know all the facts. After all, the survey which was done was, so to say, a winter survey. We hope to carry out this further survey in August, which will, perhaps, reveal a bit more about the numbers of travelling people and the nature of their wishes. Some may have permanent homes, and may travel only in the summer, in which case we really


could not make a sudden jump to the solution suggested by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson). We could not have a preferential list. Those who remember the Kay Report will remember the argument about allocating council houses, and they will realise that this would be preferential treatment on a very formidable scale, not only in terms of numbers but of breaching a principle.

Mr. James Davidson: I think the hon. Gentleman must have misunderstood me. I did not suggest a preferential list but a special list, so that travellers who move on can afterwards be located. I did not mean a preferential list whatsoever. It has happened that when travelling people wanted local authority housing and could not then have it they moved on, and the local authority could not catch up with them and tell them when housing had since become available for them. They could not be located because they had moved on. I think a special list of such people is needed.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Some of the protesters against that would be a family who lived in my constituency and moved to Gourock and were disallowed from being included in the Gourock list because they had moved across the boundary. I have had specific knowledge of this sort of thing in my own constituency. The matter of residence would have to be discussed between the two authorities concerned. It is not easy to come to a quick solution about how we should provide permanent homes for these people, or whether there should be some kind of intermediate stage.
The Scottish Office has dismissed none of these solutions, all of which have difficulties in them. What we are trying to do is to carry out a survey, and, on the basis of that survey—not regular surveys but this additional survey in August—see if we can come to conclusions about specific things we might do. That would involve legislation. We should have to discuss this with the local authorities.
I would not accept, by the way, either, that we should make that sort of stern attempt, as suggested by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West, to have them settle down, because some of these travel

ling people just cannot, cannot in their natures, settle down. I would take the point of the hon. Member for Orpington that many of them, by the nature of their businesses, for that matter, ought not to settle down in permanent homes.
Therefore, we have to take into account the possibility of providing sites along the lines suggested by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Perth and East Perthshire in relation to Perth County Council. My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State has been to Perth and will visit Lanarkshire to discuss the matter with the local authorities, and he will be conducting other visits to other areas which may be affected, in order to see what can be done.
The liaison committee, I should tell the House, is not anxious to have this new Clause adopted. Nor does it agree that legislation can be brought in at the drop of a hat. It wants the problem properly studied. It wants the good will of the local authorities, which is very important. Of course, if there is legislation we shall have to look at the question of assisting local authorities, and that will mean discussion with them in considerable depth, because the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) is perfectly fair, that if travelling people want, and quite rightly want, to be considered more properly by society and to be given the facilities which are presently denied to them, they in their turn must undertake to observe social obligations and not be a nuisance to people in the offensive way which my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell has described.
I should like to think that only a minority of the travelling people are of this nature and so get the bad name which they do in some parts of the country. It is easy for those who are not witnesses of travelling people in their areas to be sanctimonious, if that is not too harsh a word, about the un-Christian behaviour of other people in parts of the country which are visited by the travelling people.
On the subject of trespass, a great deal of good will is necessary from all concerned, not just the police. We must impress upon the travelling people, local authorities, the police and others that we want a solution to the problem and we need their good will in this difficult period until we carry out the survey and settle


the general policy in Scotland. I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to accept that the policy for Scotland need not necessarily be the same as the policy for England and Wales. It must fit the facts of the study rather than rehearse what has been attempted quite boldly and rightly in England.
I ask for the new Clause not to be pressed, and I give an assurance that in the meantime we are asking local authorities to consider the possibility of permanent rehousing for those who are regular residents in their areas, even if they do some travelling, and to consider an interim solution for next winter in the form of more pitches which could be used lawfully by the travellers provided that they would be fair to the local community and would not cause ally of the troubles that have been witnessed in some parts of the country.
On the basis of that assurance, I ask that we do not proceed with the new Clause but wait for a more comprehensive provision which the Government will consider with the local authorities.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: This has been an interesting debate. In reply to what was said from the Liberal benches, I would say that whilst I appreciate that the new Clause does not provide a perfect answer to the problem, the remarks made ware somewhat grudging. We on this side of the House have raised this subject at the first opportunity when there has been proper knowledge of the problem, and to that extent the debate has served a useful purpose.
I appreciate, as do my hon. Friends, the need to continue with the survey, to have the survey in our hands and to have full consultation with the local authorities. I have been impressed by the concern shown by the Minister of State to reach a solution to the problem and, if need be, to introduce legislation later. In view of his assurances, which I welcome, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2

DEFINITION OF HOUSE MEETING TOLERABLE STANDARD

Mr. Hannan: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 41, leave out 'made by statutory instrument'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we can take also Amendment No. 5, in page 3, leave out lines I to 3 and insert:
(3) Any order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

Mr. Hannan: The point which is embodied in these two Amendments was referred to in Committee. The House will recall that when we discussed in Committee Clause 2(2), I moved an Amendment to insert the word "improve" which would have the effect of increasing the degree of tolerableness of all the items listed in paragraphs (a) to (i) of subsection (1). When an assurance was given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State that he would accept the spirit of the Amendment, although not its terminology, it seemed good enough assurance and guarantee to ask the Minister to look then at the further provisions in respect of Orders. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has tabled an Amendment to make clear beyond all doubt that it would be possible only for an Order under subsection (2) to raise those standards.
I pay a tribute to the Minister of State, who consistently throughout the Bill has said that the provision is not to be considered as an alternative to the provision of more and newer houses, but is to be regarded as an alternative to the system that is being used at present to try to lay down tolerable standards and to accept the principle of increasing their effectiveness.
By adopting the negative Resolution procedure, it will still be open to any hon. Member to pray against an Order about which he may have reservations. These Amendments would have the effect of substituting the negative for the affirmative Resolution procedure. We should not like to see a situation in which either Government or local authorities, because of procedural difficulties of this kind, were held back from taking speedy


action which would have the effect of raising the standards.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) for his generous tribute and also to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) for his support in both Amendments.
This matter was discussed in Committee, when I suggested that I should like to look at the point. I have since discussed with my hon. Friends their Amendments, which in draft form are quite acceptable and acceptable in principle. I am sure that the Opposition will accept that since we are agreed in principle on Amendments Nos. 3 and 4, which are virtually the same, Amendments Nos. 2 and 5 should be incorporated in the Bill. A different situation would arise if I were not to move Amendment No. 3, but since I shall be doing so, and since I hope to have Opposition support on that, it is logical that we should accept Amendments Nos. 2 and 5.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I wish briefly to respond to the invitation from the Minister. In the light of Amendment No. 3, I accept the spirit of the discussion on Amendments Nos. 2 and 5, and I support what the Minister said.

Amendment agreed to.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in line 43, after 'subsection', insert:
'in such a way as to raise the tolerable standard'.
I promised in Committee to make an Amendment of this kind. I am glad that the Opposition have put down their Amendment on this point, which is exactly the same as mine. In order to show my natural generosity, I looked to see whether or not it would be better in draft form to accept No. 4 rather than No. 3, but I am told by the draftsman that Amendment No. 3 is a little neater. Therefore, I would ask the Opposition in their turn to be generous.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for the Amendment and his acceptance of the principle which we discussed in Committee. The concern

about the point was expressed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan), and we supported him. We are glad that where standards are to be varied, they should be varied upwards. We all hope that eventually the tolerable standard will be converted into the Cullingworth satisfactory standard. Meantime, we appreciate the problem of local authorities which have many houses needing to be improved. Obviously, to set too high a standard at an early stage would present great difficulty.
As for the choice between our Amendment and the Government's the Minister has tried to be generous. I am sure that he has considered our Amendment. However, we do not hold strongly to one or the other, and in this case we return the generosity by not pursuing our Amendment and by supporting the Minister's.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 5, in page 3, leave out lines 1 to 3 and insert:
(3) Any order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.—[Mr. Hannan.]

Clause 4

LOCAL AUTHORITY MAY PASS RESOLUTION DECLARING AREA TO BE HOUSING TREAT MENT AREA

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 3, line 29, leave out from 'securing' to 'brought' in line 33 and insert:
'the carrying out of such works on the houses in the area that on the completion of the works all the houses then in the area will meet or will have been brought up to at least the tolerable standard; or
(c) by securing the demolition of some of the buildings in the area and by seating the carrying out of such works on the houses in the area, other than the houses in those buildings, that on the completion of the works all the houses then in the area will meet or will have been'
The Amendment is intended to make it clear that where an authority has resolved to act under paragraph (b) or (c), the obligation to have houses brought up to at least the tolerable standard applies only to the houses which are in the area at the time when the improvement works have been completed.
Hon. Members who served on the Committee will recall that we discussed the position of tenements where a single end, for example, may have to be included with existing houses to give space for the provision of bathrooms. As Clause 4 is drafted at present, where an authority has resolved to proceed in a housing treatment area either by improvement or a combination of improvement and demolition, it is obliged to improve all the houses which are in the area at the time of the resolution or all such houses which it had not resolved to demolish. This, therefore, is a clarifying Amendment which I hope, has the agreement of hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: One small point occurs to me which I hope is appropriate to the Amendment. In such a clearance area, if the demolition of part of a tenement property is called for and the rest is classified as being suitable to bring up to a tolerable standard, whose is the responsibility for shoring up the gable ends which are left? It may be that this is dealt with in another part of the Bill, but this question appears to arise in the change which the hon. Gentleman proposes.
If one close in a group of five or six tenements becomes unsound and is demolished, it can have an effect on the structures of the houses on either side of it, and their proprietors may be involved in substantial bills for shoring up and restoring gable ends or making their properties more secure. Whose is the responsibility? If the local authority is carrying out the demolition of one property, who will be responsible for maintaining the structure of adjacent houses or for shoring up the gable ends? Does that fall on the authority which calls for the demolition? It is a detailed point, but one which is bound to arise, and I should appreciate the Minister's observations.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Nothing in the Bill would prevent it being dealt with by the local authority in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. But I doubt whether there will be many cases where it will be appropriate.
We, naturally, missed the hon. Gentleman's presence in Committee, but we know that he has many obligations else-

where. If he had been intimately connected with the Bill, he would know that areas are drawn by the local authority in its discretion and put up to the Minister as areas for housing treatment. Unlike the English system, ours involves demolition and improvement together. I should be surprised at a local authority putting up the case that there should be knocking-down of tenement blocks which left one or several being shored up. That would be a very unsightly-looking procedure. However, if the hon. Gentleman feels that there is some doubt about it and that this matter might arise, I will look into it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5

PROVISIONS SUPPI.EMENTARY TO S. 4

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 5, line 3, at end insert:
(5) Where a local authority purchase the land and themselves undertake, or otherwise secure. the demolition of the buildings in pursuance of this section it shall be their duty to secure that any persons who may be displaced from residential accommodation on the land and for whom no suitable accommodation is otherwise available on reasonable terms will be provided with such accommodation before the displacement.
I move this Amendment fairly quickly, because the Minister is aware of our views. Clause 1 lays responsibility on a local authority to consider alternative housing accommodation in pursuing the purposes of the Bill. However, when we come to Clause 4 the local authority is given powers to secure the demolition either itself or through another agency. The new subsection that I propose to Clause 5 puts the onus directly on the local authority to provide alternative accommodation for those who are displaced as a result of action under Clause 4 followed by action under Clause 5. I want an assurance of full help from local authorities in rehousing those who are displaced.
We had an argument about this in Committee on an earlier Clause. My point is the responsibility of the local authority towards those who may be owner-occupiers or tenants of private landlords. In Committee, the Minister


of State said that private landlords should operate their own reallocation schemes for the rehousing of their tenants. Rehousing is vitally necessary under the Bill if the improvements that we wish to see carried out are to take place. However, the Minister of State is glossing over some of the difficulties of rehousing owner-occupiers and tenants of private landlords.
Many practical problems arise. I have discussed this point with the Property Owners Association in Glasgow. Whilst it has considered and would like a scheme of reallocating houses, it thinks that there are great practical difficulties. I do not intend to go into the matter in detail this evening. We discussed some of the problems in Committee, particularly the problems of the smaller landlords with, perhaps, one or two houses.
The Amendment puts a specific duty on the local authority, I appreciate that this is not as wide as the point that I raised in Committee. The Clause refers particularly to houses that have been purchased by a local authority or demolished by it or by some other party on instruction. I appreciate that the problem of rehousing does not refer to nearly as wide a context as the point that I raised in Committee under Clause 1. However, it still raises a point of substance. We must be much more certain about how we provide alternative accommodation for owner-occupiers or tenants. For this reason, I should like these words to be written into the Bill so that the onus is laid on local authorities to rehouse those who are displaced.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: If the Amendment were made, would it apply only to houses purchased in tenement properties, or would it apply to the rehousing of those in properties which are subject to demolition on the initiative of a local authority but which still rest officially in the ownership of the persons concerned?
What is the Minister's interpretation of "suitable"? There are instances, particularly in Glasgow, where persons living in private accommodation have their houses subject to clearance or demolition and are made an offer of rehousing which is not suitable, in that it is a substantial distance from their place of work, from where their friends live, or from where they have made their homes for anything up to 50 or 60 years. Does

the Department advise local authorities that efforts should be made to rehouse people in an area of the same character as that in which they live and not too far from where they now live?
In the event of suitable housing being offered to an owner-occupier, what does the Bill provide as to demolition costs? Only this morning I brought a case to the attention of the Minister. This is not something which happens once in a blue moon. The Minister may have heard of Glasgow and of Cathcart. In Stanmore Road and Holmlea Road there are specific cases of houses which have come down. These houses are in owner-occupation, and the occupants have put their life savings into them. The money is lost. The owners get a bill for the demolition of their own houses. In the case which I have raised with the Minister this morning, the costs involved in respect of one house in Stanmore Road amount to £839. The normal procedure is for the local authority to put a real lien on the land concerned. Will this apply to the taking-over of houses? Will it be the general practice for local authorities not to charge for demolition but to put a real lien on the future development possibilities of the land?

9.30 p.m.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I am not blaming the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) in any way, but I am sorry that he did not serve on the Standing Committee with us, because we discussed many of these matters thoroughly. If the hon. Gentleman had served on the Committee, or had read our proceedings in Committee, he would know that we discussed this matter extensively.
The choice is simple. One method is to rely on the present means which we have adopted. I thought that S.D.D. Circular 63/1968, which we published following the Kay Committee Report on the allocation of council houses, received general acceptance from most hon. Members as being a good circular. There is, as the alternative, the suggestion in the Amendment of doing it by legislation. I accept that this is a somewhat slenderer approach than that which we discussed in Committee, but it brings us back to the question whether we should put into legislation the general principle which is embodied in the Amendment.
In Clause 1(2) we have accepted the general principle that local authorities must ensure that there is suitable accommodation available for people displaced by slum clearance action. It would be a piece of impertinence on the part of the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) or myself to attempt to define "suitable". "Suitable" is a highly useful word implying a great deal of discretion on the part of the local authority. It is not one that could possibly be written into statute or even into a circular, because it would be bound to offend a family in some particular area. We therefore leave it to the discretion of the local authorities.
The working party of local authority officials, with which we discussed the matter in great depth, was, like us, of the opinion that it would be wrong to introduce a statutory rehousing obligation into the Measure. This applies all the more in Scotland not only because we are introducing the concept of full market value compensation for owner occupiers but also because in Scotland we are determined, unlike our friends in England because they have a different problem, to go in for much more demolition than they intend to do. Our provisions are designed more to demolish than to improve. While we do not in any way disregard the advantages of improvement, we certainly accept that there has to be demolition.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: The Minister has referred to demolition and market value compensation. In some cases the demolition charges exceed the market value of the houses. Could he say what happens to the demolition charges?

Dr. Mabon: No, not at this stage. I want to stick to the subject of housing. We are debating the issue of housing, albeit qualified by this Amendment, in a narrow sense. If we were to import a statutory obligation of rehousing, it would make difficult the process of getting on with the housing areas. The purpose of the Bill is to improve housing and demolish slums. Therefore, anything which stands in the way of that process is dangerous to the objects of the Bill, which both sides of the House support.

We do not want arguments about rehousing as such. Somebody might want to be rehoused in a certain place, and that might delay the conclusion to the discussion about full market value. The converse might also be true.

While we are most anxious to secure full market value compensation for owner-occupiers, we do not want to import a statutory obligation which would mean delay in getting ahead with the housing treatment areas. I hope the hon. Member will realise that we cannot simply accept this Amendment, which, I agree, is modelled on Clause 36(3) of the English Bill and is related, quite properly, to the improvement areas according to the English idea, because in Scotland it would offend the position in the two ways that I have described; first, it would be a failure to recognise that demolition is a crucial part of our system of dealing with housing treatment areas; and, second, we have agreed readily to full market value compensation.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I should like to respond to the Minister of State. I feel that this comes down to a question of balance of judgment to a great extent. I appreciate that there are reasons—and I do not argue with them—as to why we have not written into this Bill this obligation on the local authority. I agree that we do not want to write anything into a Bill which may delay the achievement of demolition.
However, I must ask the Minister to bear in mind the opposite point of view, that if there are going to be difficulties in rehousing particularly those who are private tenants and owner-occupiers, he will get opposition in other directions unless this obligation is fulfilled. I appreciate that the general obligation is backed up morally by the Scottish Development Department in its circulars, but we feel that the balance falls in such a way that the obligation should be written into the legislation. For that reason I ask my hon. Friends to support the Amendment.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 105, Noes 150.

Division No. 301.]
AYES
[9.35 p.m.


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Biggs-Davison, John
Brewis, John


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.


Biffen, John
Body, Richard
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)




Bullus, Sir Eric
Hawkins, Paul
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Campbell, B. (Oldham, w.)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hiley, Joseph
Russell, Sir Ronald


Carlisle, Mark
Hirst, Geoffrey
Scott, Nicholas


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Sharples, Richard


Chataway, Christopher
Holland, Philip
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Clark, Henry
Hornby, Richard
Silvester, Frederick


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Corfield, F. V.
Kitson, Timothy
Speed, Keith


Costain, A. P.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Stainton, Keith


Currie, G. B. H.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Lane, David
Stodart, Anthony


Dean, Paul
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Tapsell, Peter


Deedes, Rt. Hn. w. F. (Ashford)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lubbock, Eric
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
MacArthur, Ian
Tilney, John


Doughty, Charles
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Maude, Angus
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Mawby, Ray
Waddington, David


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Emery, Peter
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Walters, Dennis


Errington, Sir Eric
Monro, Hector
Ward, Dame Irene


Farr, John
Montgomery, Fergus
Weatherill, Bernard


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Foster, Sir John
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Wiggin, A. W.


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Murton, Oscar
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Goodhart, Philip
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Grant, Anthony
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Worsley, Marcus


Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Wright, Esmond


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Wylie, N. R.


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Pounder, Rafton



Gurden, Harold
Prior, J. M. L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Pym, Francis
Mr. Anthony Royle and Mr. Reginald Eyre.


Harris, Reader (Heston)






NOES


Alldritt, Walter
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Manuel, Archie


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mapp, Charles


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell.)
Marks, Kenneth


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Barnett, Joel
Hannan, William
Maxwell, Robert


Beaney, Alan
Harper, Joseph
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Bidwell, Sydney
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mendelson, John


Binns, John
Haseldine, Norman
Millan, Bruce


Blackburn, F.
Heffer, Eric S.
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Moonman, Eric


Booth, Albert
Hooley, Frank
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Boyden, James
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Newens, Stan


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Ogden, Eric


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Orbach, Maurice


Buchan, Norman
Huckfield, Leslie
Orme, Stanley


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oswald, Thomas


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hunter, Adam
Paget, R. T.


Chapman, Donald
Hynd, John
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Concannon, J. D.
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)



Conlan, Bernard
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Dalyell, Tam
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pentland, Norman


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Kenyon, Clifford
Price, William (Rugby)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Lawson, George
Rankin, John


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Leadbitter, Ted
Rees, Merlyn


Delargy, Hugh
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dewar, Donald
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Dobson, Ray
Lee, John (Reading)
Sheldon, Robert


Doig, Peter




Driberg, Tom
Lestor, Miss Joan
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Eadie, Alex
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Edelman, Maurice
Lomas, Kenneth
Silverman, Julius


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Loughlin, Charles
Slater, Joseph


Ensor, David
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Small, William


Faulds, Andrew
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Spriggs, Leslie


Fernyhough, E.
MacColl, James
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
MacDermot, Niall
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Forrester, John
McGuire, Michael
Symonds, J. B.


Fowler, Gerry
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Taverne, Dick


Freeson, Reginald
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Thornton, Ernest


Garrett, W. E.
Mackintosh, John P.
Tinn, James


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Maclennan, Robert
Tuck, Raphael


Gregory, Arnold
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Urwin. T. W.







Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Whitaker, Ben
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Wilkins, W. A.
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Wallace, George
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Woof, Robert


Watkins, David (Consett)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)



Wellbeloved, James
Williams, W. T, (Warrington)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.


Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George
Mr. Charles R. Morris and Mr. Ioan L. Evan.

Clause 6

LOCAL AUTHORITY MAY ACQUIRE LAND SURROUNDED BY OR ADJOINING HOUS ING TREATMENT AREA

Mr. Hector Monro: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 5, line 19, at end insert:
'including use for recreational purposes'.
Those hon. Members who served on the Committee will remember that when we discussed the Question, "That Clause 6 stand part of the Bill", we put forward a strong case for the local authority being able to acquire land for recreational purposes. But we did not receive any reply to that debate, although in some ways the Minister did discuss it when we dealt with Clause 58, which is in much more general terms and in which grants and loans are available to private landowners as well as in respect of land owned by local authorities.
9.45 p.m.
It was very clear in the two debates that those who had studied the Culling-worth Report, which makes out a clear case that there is no point in improving houses unless one improves the surrounding land to make the whole community attractive, thought that we should specifically add to Clause 6 a provision that land could be bought for environmental and recreational purposes. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that this is something we should support. We want to see land bought for Community halls, community centres, playing fields, adventure playgrounds, parks and even sports contests—all of which are things which would surely commend themselves to the House. The Amendment would provide a useful power and if it were used wisely by the local authorities, it could do nothing but good.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: The Amendment is unnecessary, although I certainly agree with the principle behind it. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) has referred to Clause 58. If he reads that along with Clause 59, he will see that the provision of play spaces is an example of

the kind of expenditure which is likely to be eligible for grant under Clause 59.
We accept that the purpose of housing treatment areas is to improve the amenities as well as the houses. Clause 6 as drafted does not prevent in any way a local authority from using its power which is contained, as I have said, in Clauses 58 and 59, to the end described by the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) explained to us the family wedding which detained him from moving this Amendment in Committee, and I think that we were able to have a short discussion on the point. I hope that I have explained the position again. There is nothing in the proposals of the hon. Member for Dumfries which cannot be realised in the Bill as it stands. We do not have to make his Amendment. In any case, it would be in the wrong place. It would, if they were defective, be more appropriate to Clauses 58 and 59 because they are the physiological Clauses which make a reality of his plea for recreational facilities. They give the Bill the life force, as Bernard Shaw would say, to make the recreational provisions the hon. Gentleman has mentioned into a reality.

Mr. Monro: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reply. I am sorry that he has not seen fit to accept the Amendment. It is a matter of judgment whether it improves Clause 6 or not but, in view of what he has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8

POWER OF LOCAL AUTHORITY TO RETAIN HOUSES SUBJECT TO DEMOLITION FOR TEMPORARY OCCUPATION

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 7, line 2, at end insert:
(4) Where a local authority exercise their power under subsection (1) of this section they shall make a return of houses so occupied to the Secretary of State at such time and in such form as he may prescribe.


The Amendment seeks to do two things. First, it seeks to keep the Secretary of State informed of local conditions. Obviously, any Government, when drawing up their housing policy, must be influenced by the conditions as they are, possibly even in remote areas—certainly in all areas over which they have jurisdiction. Such local conditions as are prescribed in the Amendment come within this scope.
Secondly, there is a danger that local authorities will keep patched houses in occupation almost in perpetuity for temporary rehousing in housing clearance areas. This state of affairs would apply to only a minority of authorities, but the retention in occupation of such houses should be subject to the over-riding decision of the Secretary of State.
Paragraph 208 of the Cullingworth Report advocates the patching of unfit houses for a limited period so that they may be used for temporary accommodation for families awaiting rehousing. In Committee, the Minister of State said:
I agree that it is very important that the authorities should not have these houses in occupation for very long—".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, First Scottish Standing Committee, 10th June, 1969; c. 135.]
That is part of the purpose of the Amendment. Later the hon. Gentleman posed a rhetorical question to which neither he nor other hon. Members could give an answer—"How temporary is temporary?". That is a difficulty which we appreciate. The Amendment would give over-riding powers to the Secretary of State under other legislation to keep his eye on the trouble and so be able to bring pressure on authorities to end the usage where he considered that desirable.
Obviously, nobody wishes to perpetuate the use of so-called patched houses, but the financial help available to authorities under Section 17 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, makes provision for such activities. The Cullingworth Report said that few authorities had availed themselves of this provision. Paragraph 216 of the Report says:
We therefore recommend that the financial provisions for patching should be reviewed as a matter of urgency and that local authorities with a clearance problem which cannot be met within five years should be required to use their powers for the acquisition and patching

of property which falls below the Tolerable Standard".
We are not asking that a house should be brought to the tolerable standards defined in the Bill, but the Amendment would assist the Secretary of State in approving grants under the 1950 Act if they came within his jurisdiction.
I regret that I do not have a personal first-hand knowledge of the problem as it affects Glasgow, but, evidently, it is there that much of the problem exists. The Amendment would help there as it would help elsewhere.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I support the Amendment. I did not have the pleasure of serving on the Committee; I was serving on the Committee dealing with the Iron and Steel Bill.
The Minister will be aware of the situation in Glasgow where some houses have been taken over as substandard, maintained by the local authority and occupied for a long time. It would be useful if a return of such houses were made to ensure that they did not remain occupied for too long. An advantage of such a register would be that it would give some indication of the time when a house had been used and occupied in such circumstances.
If this Amendment is accepted, does it refer to tenanted houses taken over for demolition and does the same person stay on? My hon. Friend has detailed knowledge of this. In such circumstances, in an area scheduled for demolition and determined under this Amendment, what is the position of two tenants on either side of a stair, one with a controlled rent, the other with a fair rent?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The real question must be addressed to the return that is being asked for.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I accept that there is no connection, and perhaps I can reply to that at some other time.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: The Minister does not know.

Dr. Mabon: That is not the case. The hon. Gentleman must contain himself. The Amendment is unnecessary. The Bill already provides for it, and for that matter the 1966 Act, which he ought to know, provides at present that under Sections 20 or 40, as repeated in Clause 8


of the Bill, we may allow claims for grant in respect of expense incurred under section 19 of the 1968 Act.
The point which the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker) was raising—namely, his desire that there should be a record—is a legitimate one, which we try to secure. There are two elements in the grant payment. One runs for a fixed period of 15 years, and the other runs for the number of years for which the house is kept in use. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) is right; we are concerned that houses which are taken over for patching are not kept in use for too long.
Glasgow is perhaps the critical example, and the present position there is that patched houses are kept in use for about five years. In my opinion, that is rather a long time, but I recognise the difficulties in Glasgow. The point is that if we had an annual return such as the hon. Gentleman is suggesting, we should have all the information about this. There are these two elements in the grant payment. When the authorities make their claims they indicate separately houses which have been acquired for patching during the year and houses which have previously been patched and taken out of use. That gives us a running account not only of the new entrants to the scheme but of those for which we are still making annual payments in this category. There is no need to make further statutory provision. If we had a gap, I agree that we should have such a return.
We are often criticised for having too many returns, but this is essential, not only for the supervision which has been suggested but because of the need for financial supervision. I thought that that was the burden of the hon. Gentleman's argument. Housing legislation is complex, and one cannot always recall exactly what is going on. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the chance to explain the provisions as they have applied and will apply when we pass this Bill. I am sure that, with that assurance, he will not want to press his Amendment, which would only duplicate the present statutory provision, which I agree is essential.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: I thank the Minister of State for that reply, and, since the provisions of the Amendment

are adequately covered in previous legislation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11

PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF WELL MAINTAINED HOUSES

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 8, leave out lines 8 to 12.
This is in the nature of a probing Amendment. Under Clause 11 the local authority can make payments in respect of well-maintained houses in two circumstances, either when the house is occupied by the owner or when it is not occupied by the person liable to maintain it. Presumably in certain circumstances this will include the tenant. We then come to the last few lines which I propose to exclude. Who excluded under paragraphs (a) and (b) is to be included in the lines that I propose to delete? We did not discuss this point in Committee—

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Housing (Scotland) Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: On closer study, it appears to me that these lines are not necessary. Perhaps they have a purpose. I should like to hear what the Minister of State has to say about them.

Mr. John Brewis: My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) said that this was a probing Amendment. It may be rare that a house is not occupied by the owner or by a person liable to maintain and repair it. Occasionally a house may be occupied by somebody who has not a title to it.
I wish briefly to refer to a case, of which the Minister has had short notice, which occurred in my constituency. A couple, Mr. and Mrs. Compton, were rehoused by the county council in a new


house as a result of a redevelopment scheme. They had bought the house which they left about ten years before when it was, more or less, falling down. They had to strip everything in it and put in new walls and new floors and have it rewired. They paid £90 for it, but found that nobody could give them a good title because the title deeds had been burned years ago and there was never any possibility of the owner of the house turning up. They spent about £300 to £400 on the house while it was in their occupation, but, owing to a lack of title, it was not possible for the county council to make any payment to them on the basis of its being a well-maintained house, which undoubtedly it was.
I should think that a case like this comes within the proviso to the Clause and that there may be a few rare cases like it. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that this is the sort of case which he has in mind. Perhaps he could go even further and tell me whether there were similar provisions in the previous Act.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: If an individual makes a claim for compensation and the person inspecting the house takes the view that a substantial part of the responsibility for maintaining the house in good repair arises directly from the work under the storm damage compensation scheme, with which the Minister was personally connected, will it affect the eligibility to compensation of the individual concerned?

Dr. Dickson Mabon: The answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) is "Yes". This should be taken into account and there is sufficient discretion in the Statute to make this assessment. However, the Clause is concerned only with the houses which are purchased compulsorily at site value because they have failed to meet the tolerable standard and, therefore, are unfit for human habitation.
I am obliged to the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) for giving me notice this morning that he would raise the matter which he has raised. However, it is very much a question of establishing title; it is not connected with the Clause. I am told that this could be done only by obtaining an extract of the

title from the register of sasines. Once title is established, an owner would be entitled to full compensation. The hon. Gentleman has written to the Lord Advocate. I have not been able to trace the reply which may have gone to him, or which may be in preparation, through the Scottish Home and Health Department. I will look into the point and write to him.

Mr. Brewis: There is no possibility of tracing the owner through the sasines register. It has already been looked at. I do not, however, want to take up the time of the House further on this occasion.

Dr. Mabon: I know how patient the hon. Member is about these matters. I will look into this and find out whether the matter has to rest there or whether we can take it a stage further. I am sure that the House sympathises with the point of the case expressed tonight by the hon. Member.
As to the probing nature of the Amendment, if we were to make the Amendment a tenant who carried out work in the house on internal repairs, who replaced fireplaces and installed water-heating facilities and kitchen fitments—this do-it-yourself equipment is becoming more common and young couples living in many of these houses are to be commended for trying to make little palaces of nearly unfit houses—would be excluded altogether from well-maintained payments. It would prevent us from making such payments. I suggest to the hon. Member that that is not what he would like to do.
The proviso is in similar terms to Section 49 of the 1966 Act, which dealt with well-maintained payments in clearance areas, and which, as the hon. Member knows, the Bill repeals. Section 25 of the 1966 Act covers well-maintained payments for houses which are subject to closing or demolition orders, and it contains the same form of words.
In reply to the hon. Member for Cathcart, I would say that there is no question of a claim as such. The Secretary of State would decide in the light of the inspection and give a direction. The well-maintained payment might become, as I suggested at the beginning, part of the amount in relation to storm damage of the loan which the local authority recovers from the owner. If he gets relief


because of hardship, he could hardly get payment as well.
I do not think I can say more in response to the probing Amendment. It may have clarified the position. I think we are all agreed that tenants should be included and not excluded.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As I said earlier, I support the principle of the Clause. We are glad that these payments are made for good maintenance. We want to see this extended to tenants also. We have no intention to exclude them.
The sole purpose of the Amendment was to obtain clarification. It has served a good purpose in making clear to people outside that tenants, as well as others, are included in the entitlement to payments when they have kept the house well maintained and in good condition.
Having had the Minister's explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 16

LOCAL AUTHORITY MAY CONTROL OCCUPA TION OF HOUSES IN HOUSING TREAT MENT AREA

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 11, line 21, leave out 'occupation' and insert 're-letting or sale'.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that with this Amendment we take also Amendment No. 13, in line 36, leave out 'occupies' and insert 're-lets or sells', and Amendment No. 14, also in line 36, leave out 'occupied' and insert 're-let or sold'.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Clause 16 arises directly from paragraph 31 of the White Paper, Cmnd. 3598, "The Older Houses in Scotland". While I appreciate and I do not in any way question the principle of the Clause, the need to control occupation of houses within housing treatment areas is obviously necessary. I certainly support that as it is laid out in paragraph 31 of the White Paper.
Whilst, however, the Clause refers in every case to the occupation of the house, it is interesting that the White Paper

refers to control of reletting and of sale as the means by which to control occupation and not the direct control of occupation itself.
The final sentence of paragraph 31 of the White Paper states that
Legislation might, for instance, provide that after a certain stage such houses could only be relet to tenants approved by the local authority or sold with the consent of the authority.
Therefore, I am interested to know why "occupation" has had to be used throughout the Clause whereas in the White Paper the suggestion is that to control occupation, all that is needed is to control reletting and sale as the means of controlling occupation.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: May I put just two points to the Minister? First, should like to support the Amendment particularly in relation to old people. Often, it will be possible for a demolition order to be placed on a house but not necessarily to come into operation right away, and I think it is right that old people who have been resident in a house should have an opportunity to go on residing there. That is the first point I would put to the Minister in support of this Amendment.
The second point is, that the rubric to Clause 16 is,
Local authority may control occupation of houses in housing treatment area.
It is conceivable in a constituency like my own that control will be necessary not in housing treatment areas but in isolated cases—a house which is taken over by the county council, for instance, in a remote area. I ask the Minister when he replies to the debate to make observation on that.

Mr. Speaker: There is no Amendment down to subsection (2).

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I am much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, and I do not say that only formally, either.
The House will recall that paragraph 31 of the White Paper proposed that the provision in any future Bill would be control of occupation or sale. The Amendment would change this to sale or letting. What we think would happen in that case is that there would not be the same control over families in these houses as we would desire.
The idea of Clause 16 is to encourage local authorities to go ahead with housing treatment areas. That means we want them to rehouse the families there as quickly as possible. We could not have an area, so to speak, of osmosis whereby one family moves on and has a local authority house, sometimes not necessarily, in priority over the housing waiting list, and then another family moves in and in its turn is rehoused in order to get the housing treatment area properly dealt with. That would be unfair to the families on the waiting list. It would discourage a local authority from getting ahead with housing treatment areas if we were to switch the bias from control of occupation to this proposed form of control.
I have looked very closely at the memorandum from the Chartered Land Societies, Scotland, and the Property Owners and Factors Federation in their representations to us, and, quite frankly, I cannot understand the reasons why they are asking for this. It seems to me that if their concern is over empty property then this is one of the penalties of getting housing treatment areas dealt with. Once one starts a housing treatment area there are bound to be empty properties. Not only in these areas but in any part of the country one cannot get a house either demolished or improved just at the drop of a hat. It is very difficulty; particularly in Scotland, there is a very difficult problem where we have to deal with old tenements with 12 or more families having to be rehoused in one single block instead of being scattered as, for instance, in Birmingham, over a reasonably larger area.
Therefore, I put it to the House that it is very important that we keep control over the occupation of the houses. The local authorities are very much with us on this. I am sure the whole House wants us to make a success of these housing treatment areas. The initiative lies with the local authorities. If we were to switch this proposed form of control I think we should be doing damage to the object of the exercise, which is to get housing treatment areas dealt with more expeditiously. I would agree that we do not want to keep houses empty too long, and I would agree that we do not want houses to fall

into a bad state of maintenance. I accept that criticism, which is a good point.
10.15 p.m.
On balance, taking it that there can be only one form of control or the other, I think that the Government are right in sticking, with the local authorities, to Clause 16 as drafted. I realise that this is a probing Amendment, and I hope that I have satisfied the Opposition on this ground. I do not see the advantages of the form of control which the Opposition suggest, but I do see the disadvantages of it.
The Clause specifically allows the person living in the house when the order is made to continue to live there. That answers the point made by the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker) about old people. That is still controlling occupation. Where the landlord can provide alternative accommodation, when he is ready to go ahead he will transfer the old couple and this would, we hope, be done in a humane way. Should we do this by sale or letting or, alternatively, by control of occupation? I believe that the Clause is right as it stands.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Of course I accept the principle of the Clause. There must be control of occupation. I entirely accept the Minister's point that it is utterly unfair if as soon as one family moves out another family moves in, and that is why the Clause is necessary.
I am glad that the Minister accepts the point that there is an effect of almost a blight in housing treatment areas if houses are left empty for a long time. The whole area becomes shabby and derelict, and this has a bad effect.
In recognising this point, I hope that the Minister will impress on local authorities in carrying out the provisions of the Bill that when houses are empty they have the right to control occupation. In return for that right to control occupation, they should go ahead with rehousing as quickly as possible so that houses are not left empty for a long period.
The assurance which the Minister has given—that once a housing treatment area has been designated and houses become empty, the houses will be left empty for the shortest possible time—meets the point. I hope that the Minister will make sure that what he says is observed by


the local authorities. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

Clause 24

POWER OF LOCAL AUTHORITY TO SECURE REPAIR OF HOUSE IN STATE OF SERIOUS DISREPAIR

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I beg to move Amendment No. 18, in page 17, line 15, after second 'in', insert 'such'.

Mr. Speaker: It will be convenient to take also Amendment No. 19, in page 17, line 15, leave out
'although not in a state of serious disrepair and'
and Amendment No. 20, in page 17, line 19, at end add—
(5) For the purposes of this section a house shall be deemed to be in a state of serious disrepair if, although it is not unfit for human habitation, substantial repairs are required to bring it up to a reasonable standard having regard to the criteria in section 2 of this Act.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: This is a group of three Amendment which go together. The group has two objects. I will take first Amendment No. 20, because that has the main object of giving guidance on what shall be for the purpose of the Clause interpreted as a state of serious disrepair. The whole Clause is dependent upon an understanding of that phrase, which appears in the second line. There is nothing at present in the Clause to indicate what is a state of serious disrepair. The proposed addition in Amendment No. 20 indicates that, although the house is still habitable, substantial repairs are needed to reach a reasonable standard having regard to the criteria which are listed in Clause 2 for the tolerable standard of a house.
We recognise that the tolerable standard which has been defined by those criteria in Clause 2 relates to improvement and situations where amenities may be lacking and that Clause 24 is concerned with disrepair rather than with the improvement of houses and the lack of amenities. Nonetheless, because the criteria in Clause 2 have to be accepted and understood by all those who are to operate the Bill when it is enacted, we believe that by referring to them and bringing them

into the Bill it will give valuable guidance to those who must make a judgment arising from the Clause. We have borrowed some words from the English Bill which we believe are helpful.
The second objective concerns the other two Amendments, Nos. 18 and 19. We seek to improve subsection (4). That subsection adds an extra point to the Clause, but, to put it mildly, it is not felicitously phrased. Briefly, what it says is that although a house is not in a state of disrepair, it shall be deemed to be in a state of disrepair. This will make it difficult for those who have to judge whether the house is in a state which will then cause the Clause to come into effect.
In Committee the Minister seemed to admit that there was some shortcoming in the drafting of the Clause. We accepted his challenge to try to improve it and to make it easier for those who will have to operate the provision and to interpret it. I am sorry that the Government have not made an attempt in an Amendment of their own to carry out what we in Committee were seeking to do, but I believe that the Amendments which we have tabled, or something like them, if accepted by the Government, will be helpful to those who have to administer the Bill later. At the moment the Clause may cause difficulties later on if there is a dispute. We hope that there will not be too many disputes, but on a subject like this there are bound to be. Anything we can do now to make clearer what we mean will help later on.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I appreciate the effort by the Opposition to seek to improve the Bill by importing these new subsections. Although I shall criticise them, it is not because I lack appreciation of their efforts. It is easy to knock things down rather conconstructively to improve them.
There are two defects in the Amendment. I do not blame the hon. Gentleman for borrowing the English phrase, but it does not fit, because in the Bill we are repealing the provisions as that phrase applies to them, while in the English Bill they are retained. It is therefore appropriate that it should be so phrased in the English Bill. We should have to do a little more surgery and a little more adding than this if we were to accept the use of the English phrase as such.
Furthermore, to take the reference in Amendment No. 20 to Clause 2, the reference will be inappropriate in that it would provide a severe—the property owners would argue a too severe—test for this purpose. If a house has only a year or two of life left, is it fair to insist that it should be brought up to tolerable standards? This is almost self-defeating. We do not like houses in this condition. It is right and proper that we might want an owner to make the roof watertight and to do some repairs, but not extensive repairs. To put a damp course in a house with two years' life is a waste of private and public money. To put in the further subsection would be quite inappropriate and unfair both to the local authority and to the landlord.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Paragraph (b) of subsection (1) deals with the age of the house. That must be taken into account.

Dr. Mabon: The minute one applies this kind of test, one realises what one will have to observe.
What is the alternative to the hon. Gentleman's Amendment or to any Amendment which the Government might have drafted? It is to consult the people concerned. I thought that that part of the hon. Gentleman's speech was quite right. The people concerned are the sanitary inspectors, local authority officers, those concerned with the Building Acts, those experienced in the sheriff courts, and the sheriffs. They are the people who are involved in the practical problems. The sheriff is well used to hearing and assessing evidence and judging appeals under Section 27.
All my advice is that it is better to leave the matter as it is. Someone once said, "It is difficult to define an elephant, but you recognise it the minute you see it ". That is the sort of argument which has been put to me. One can argue cases

of disrepair and of serious disrepair and make a distinction which has been understood by inspectors who have operated the Public Health Acts for a long time. My own Chief Sanitary Inspector is a distinguished former President of the Association in Scotland, and his advice is that it is better to leave this matter for practical interpretation and to the experience of the sheriff than to amend it in a statute. I have tried to interpret this, and I have been unsuccessful. That is why I have moved no amendment.

This Amendment is defective in two serious ways. We could make an attempt to correct the first one, but the other is too severe to put into the Bill. I would counsel hon. Gentlemen opposite that it is too hard to do it in the Bill. The matter should be left as it is. It has been like that for some time now, and it works reasonably well. If the hon. Gentleman has any better suggestions to make, no doubt we can look at the matter again in the other place. But it would be a mistake to make this Amendment.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The hon. Gentleman has recognised that there is a problem here, and we are disappointed that he has made no attempt to draft an Amendment with a view to putting it right.
Clearly it is a matter of judgment. If we followed his advice that it is impossible to describe an elephant but one knows it when one sees it, we would do very little of the work that this House has to do. It is our job to help those who have to carry out our enactments. We believe that something along the lines of the Amendment should be in the Bill, and I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support it.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 93, Noes 143.

Division No. 302.]
AYES
[10.27 p.m.


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Carlisle, Mark
Doughty, Charles


Biffen, John
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Biggs-Davison, John
Chataway, Christopher
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Clark, Henry
Emery, Peter


Body, Richard
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Eyre, Reginald


Brewis, John
Corfield, F. V.
Farr, John


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Costain, A. P.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Currie, G. B. H.
Foster, Sir John


Bullus, Sir Eric
Dean, Paul
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Goodhart, Philip




Grant, Anthony
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Speed, Keith


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Montgomery, Fergus
Stodart, Anthony


Curden, Harold
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hawkins, Paul
Murton, Oscar
Tilney, John


Heald, Rt. H[...] Sir Lionel
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Hiley, Joseph
Page, Graham (Crosby)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Holland, Philip
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Waddington, David


Hornby, Richard
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Walters, Dennis


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pounder, Rafton
Ward, Dame Irene


Kitson, Timothy
Prior, J. M. L.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Pym, Francis
Wiggin, A. W.


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Lane, David
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Royle, Anthony
Worsley, Marcus


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Russell, Sir Ronald
Wright, Esmond


Mac Arthur, Ian
Scott, Nicholas
Wylie, N. R.


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Sharples, Richard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Maude, Angus
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Mawby, Ray
Silvester, Frederick
Mr. Hector Morris.




NOES


Alldritt, Walter
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Ashton, Joe (Passetlaw)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Hannan, William
Newens, Stan


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Harper, Joseph
Orbach, Maurice


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Orme, Stanley


Barnett, Joel
Heseldine, Norman
Oswald, Thomas


Beaney, Alan
Heffer, Eric S.
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Bidwell, Sydney
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Paget, R. T.


Binns, John
Hooley, Frank
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pentland, Norman


Booth, Albert
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Boyden, James
Huckfield, Leslie
Price, William (Rugby)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Rees, Merlyn


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hunter, Adam
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hynd, John
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Buchan, Norman
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Ryan, John


Carmichael, Neil
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Sheldon, Robert


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Chapman, Donald
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Htill, W.)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Concannon, J. D.
Kenyon, Clifford
Silverman, Julius


Conlan, Bernard
Lawson, George



Dalyell, Tam
Leadbitter, Ted
Slater, Joseph


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Small, William


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Lee, John (Reading)
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Symonds, J. B.


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Taverne, Dick


Delargy, Hugh
Lomas, Kenneth
Tinn, James


Dewar, Donald
Loughlin, Charles
Tuck, Raphael


Dobson, Ray
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Urwin, T. W.


Doig, Peter
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Driberg, Tom
MacColl, James
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
MacDermot, Niall
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Eadie, Alex
McGuire, Michael
Wallace, George


Edelman, Maurice
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Watkins, David (Consett)


Ensor, David
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Wellbeloved, James


Faulds, Andrew
Mackintosh, John P.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fernyhough, E.
Maclennan, Robert
Whitaker, Ben


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Wilkins, W. A.


Forrester, John
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Fowler, Gerry

Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Freeson, Reginald
Mapp, Charles
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Garrett, W. E.
Marks, Kenneth
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Woof, Robert


Gregory, Arnold
Maxwell, Robert



Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mendelson, John
Mr. Charles R. Morris and Mr. Ioan L. Evans.


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)




Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Millan, Bruce

Clause 25

RECOVERY BY LOCAL AUTHORITY OF EXPENSES UNDER SECTION 24

Amendment made: No. 21, in page 17, line 40, leave out from 'the' to end of line 46 and insert:
'local authority may fix:
Provided that there may from time to time be prescribed by the Secretary of State a maximum rate of interest for the purposes of either or both of those subsections'.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

Clause 26

RECOVERY BY LESSEE OF PROPORTION OF EXPENSES INCURRED IN REPAIRING HOUSE

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 22, in page 18, line 22, leave out "seven" and insert "fourteen".
I am by way of being a mediator in this matter, because in Committee the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) moved an Amendment to delete 7 and insert 21. The Minister of State then suggested that 21 was the maximum number of days there could be and that there might be something better in between. I have tried to produce something better in between, which, I am glad to say, is supported by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles. I have reached the difficult decision that the something better between 7 and 21 is 14.

Mr. David Steel: I am always glad to welcome a sinner to repent, even a Tory sinner. I am delighted that the Opposition Front Bench has adopted the improved form of the Amendment I moved in Committee. It is not a question of my supporting the Opposition's Amendment but of our both tabling similar Amendments on the same day. I am delighted that the Opposition have joined forces with me on the point which I and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison) pressed on the Minister in Committee. The figure of 14 came from the lips of the Minister, so it will be difficult for him to refuse to accept this reasonable Amendment.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: As I was half way to the penitent's stool in Committee, the House will not be surprised to hear

me say that the Government are happy that this Amendment should be made.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 41

AMENDMENT OF SECTION 41 OF ACT OF 1968

Amendment made: No. 23, in page 24, line 38, leave out "him" and insert "to the applicant".—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

Clause 45

APPLICATION FOR QUALIFICATION CERTIFICATE

Mr. Wylie: I beg to move Amendment No. 25, in page 27, line 18, leave out from 'unless' to end of line 24 and insert:
'the dwelling has all the standard amenities'.
I am obliged to the Minister of State for writing to me on this matter which was raised during the debate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part" in Committee. This Clause relates to applications for qualification certificates, and a distinction is drawn in the circumstances envisaged in subsection (1) on the one hand and subsection (2) on the other. Subsection (1) deals with the situation, as I understand it, where at the date of the commencement of the Act no improvement works are required in order to provide the house with all the standard amenities. That is under paragraph (a). Paragraph (b) of the subsection deals with the situation in which the dwelling falls short of the standard but the necessary remedial work was begun before the commencement of the Act.
On the other hand, subsection (2) deals with a situation where an application is made for a qualification certificate before any works are begun. It seems to me that there is a hiatus here, and I am not at all sure what the way out is. I should be grateful if the Minister would consider this.
So far as I can see, there is no provision for a situation in which work is commenced between the commencement of the Act and before the application It may be that that is deliberate policy on the part of the Government, and I can understand the implications behind


subsection (2), namely, that it gives the tenant an opportunity to evaluate the consequences of those improvements as far as his rent is concerned and gives him an opportunity to object. The Minister explained that fully in the letter to which I referred.
My first concern here is this. I do not know how this will work in practice. Subsection (1) says:
… an application … shall not be entertained unless … the dwelling has at all times since the commencement of this Act been provided with all the standard amenities…
It is easy to envisage the circumstances in which although the dwelling at the time of the application satisfies the necessary standards, it is difficult to establish that many months or years ago the dwelling likewise satisfied all those standards. In Committee I raised the question what happens if an amenity has originally been provided and has since become unserviceable. The Minister's advice, I understand, is that not withstanding the unserviceability of the amenity, the amenity would have been provided and the local authority would be entitled to entertain the application.
That may be. But I think it is arguable in those circumstances because of the emphasis on the "at all times" point, that provision means not merely initial provision but by implication provision and maintenance during the whole period between the commencement of the Act and the date of the application.
Leaving that apart, will there not be difficulty here in trying to satisfy the standard set in paragraph (a)? How does one prove that the dwelling has at all times since the commencement of the Act been provided with the standard amenities? With that in mind, this Amendment has been put down simply to apply the test of the state of the dwelling at the time of the application as the matter which will decide whether the application will be entertained or not.
So far as I can see, there is no provision for an appeal against the local authority refusing to entertain an application. If an application is entertained and a certificate is refused, there are statutory provisions, in Clause 50, which enable the applicant to appeal to the sheriff on the ground that the certificate ought to have been issued.
It is interesting to note that subsection (3) of that Clause specifies two dates as being the crucial dates on the question of an appeal, namely, the state of the dwelling at the time of the hearing of the appeal, and secondly the state of the dwelling at the time of the issue of refusal of the certificate.
10.45 p.m.
If Clause 50 means that one could appeal against the refusal of a local authority to entertain an application—I do not think that it does—an impossible situation is created wherein the local authority is obliged to apply its mind to one set of criteria, namely, the state of the dwelling from the date of the commencement of the Bill till the date of the hearing, and on appeal to two other dates substituted therefor, namely, the state of the dwelling at the date of the application and the state of the dwelling at the time of the appeal.
That is why it seems to me that Clause 50 does not provide for an appeal against a refusal of the local authority to entertain an application. If it did, there would be a serious inconsistency between the two sets of provisions. If there is no provision for appeal against refusal to entertain an application, on the highly technical ground set out in subsection (1) of Clause 45, it seems that the Clause is even more complicated than appears at first reading.
Those are my two criticisms, which the Amendment is designed to cure. How does an applicant establish that at all times since the commencement of the Bill the dwelling has met the standard amenities? Second, if the local authority declines to entertain an application because it is not satisfied on that point, what provision is there for appeal against that decision?

10.45 p.m.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I am sorry that, although I went to considerable trouble in writing my letter of 23rd June to the hon. and learned Member for Pentlands (Mr. Wylie), I still do not seem to have got over the simple proposition that Clause 45 is arranged quite deliberately in subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b) and embodies a fundamental point of principle in the operation of Part IV.
The Amendment would allow a landlord who had managed, by whatever


means, after the commencement of the Bill, to provide all the standard amenities to apply right away for a qualification certificate. It might be that he had obtained the tenant's consent to the works being carried out without telling him of the full implications of the work, and particularly that it would allow the house to be converted from a controlled tenancy to a regulated tenancy. The Bill as drafted deliberately restricts the Clause 46(1) procedure to houses where there is no question of the standard amenities being provided after the commencement, and this is the point of principle which the Government regard as essential to the proper operation of Part IV.
The hon. and learned Gentleman raised several other matters, and in Committee I thought that his criticism was directed at the drafting, whereas it was basically a question of principle. He dealt with the point about standard amenities becoming unserviceable. In my letter to him I said:
My own legal advice is that the unserviceability of an amenity would not alter the fact that it was provided in the house, and the situation you referred to would not therefore prevent the local authority from entertaining an application under Clause 46(1).
I have since checked that, and the position remains as I was advised and as I stated on 23rd June.
We debated this matter extensively. The hon. and learned Gentleman has not adduced arguments further to those which he put in Committee. The Amendment would breach the principle of the Bill substantially. It is right that the tenant should be protected in this way, and I could not counsel the House to make the Amendment.
If the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to take the matter a stage further, not necessarily tonight, and he has new points of argument to raise hereafter, I shall consult my noble Friend and the Secretary of State for Scotland to see whether there is some way in which the drafting of the Clause and its consequential Clauses could be improved, but I cannot depart from the general principle which I explained in Committee and outlined in shorthand fashion again tonight.

Mr. Wylie: I think that the Minister—and I can well understand this—was

reading a prepared brief not designed to cover the points I sought to make.
I thought that I had made it clear that I accepted the principle the Minister set out in the letter, because I think that the tenant would be prejudiced if the landlord could, without his consent, make improvements which would bring the property up to standard and enable certificates to be granted. Our Amendment is really put down to probe the other points I have mentioned, neither of which the Minister has dealt with.
How will this work in practice? How will the landlord establish that a dwelling has at all times since the commencement of the Act been provided with standard amenities?
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will take up with his noble Friend the question of whether there is provision in the Bill for appeal against the refusal of the local authority to entertain an application under the Clause, in contrast to the provisions for an appeal to the sheriff against the refusal of the issue of a certificate which has been entertained.
Those are two points that I ask the Minister to consider very seriously, because they seem to me to be shortcomings in the Clause.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: On the second point, I will willingly write to the hon. and learned Gentleman again. But on the one hand he endorses the principle and on the other he moves the Amendment, and that is not possible.

Mr. Wylie: I was about to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. I thought that I had made clear that there are two problems, and I ask the Minister to consider these points.
I accept the validity of the principle, and endorse it, that the tenant must be safeguarded. My concern is whether this can work. Will the Minister think about this and consider whether there is any provision for appeal against refusal to entertain an application as distinct from the provision for appeal against refusal to issue a certificate?
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The next Amendment is Government Amendment


No. 26, with which we may discuss Government Amendment No. 27 and Amendment No. 28, in page 28, line 3, leave out 'before considering it' and insert 'forthwith'.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 26, in page 27, line 42, leave out from the beginning to 'shall' in line 43 and insert: (4) As soon as a local authority have received an application for a qualification certificate they.
The two Government Amendments fulfil an undertaking I gave in Committee that we would consider the suggestion made by the Opposition that the Bill should make it clear to local authorities that they must deal with applications for qualification certificates without undue delay. Amendment No. 26 amends subsection (4) by requiring the local authority to send a copy of the application to the tenant as soon as it receives the application instead of before considering it.

Amendment No. 27 makes it clear that where the application is made under Clause 45(1), that is, where the dwelling is already provided with all the standard amenities, the notice to the tenant of his right to make representations must be served on him at the same time as the copy of the application is sent to him.

The Amendments meet the hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion as regards the service of the notice on the tenant. He also sought to have a form of words included which would make it clear that the local authority must consider the application immediately. The Government's view is that such an insertion would be well-nigh meaningless in practical terms and would add nothing to the sense of urgency which the Government Amendments convey.

I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman might agree, on reflection, that these Amendments meet the undertaking as far as is practicable.

Amendment No. 28 follows up remarks made by the hon. and learned Gentleman in Committee, as reported at column 325 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee proceedings. The Government Amendments are perhaps a little better. I have discussed this with my legal advisers, and they are firmly of that view.

Mr. Wylie: We are grateful to the Minister for moving those Amendments. They entirely meet the point raised in Committee. I recognise, as I have on many occasions, that the Minister's expert drafting is almost invariably superior to ours, and I shall not seek to move Amendment No. 28 in preference to the Government Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 46

PROCEDURE ON APPLICATIONS UNDER SECTION 45(1)

Amendment made: No. 27, in page 28, line 3, leave out from beginning to 'a' in line 4 and insert:
'at the same time as they send a copy of the application to the person named in the application as the tenant in pursuance of section 45(4) of this Act, serve on him'.

Clause 50

APPEAL IN CERTAIN CASES AGAINST ISSUE OR REFUSAL OF QUALIFICATION CERTIFICATE

Mr. Wylie: I beg to move Amendment No. 29, in page 29, leave out line 37.
Subsection (3) provides that
on any appeal under this section the sheriff shall have regard to the state of the dwelling at …
two different times. The first is
…at the time of the hearing…
and the second is …at the time of the issue or refusal of the certificate…".
In a sense, I suppose that this is the same point as was raised earlier but I do not think that the arguments against apply as forcibly in this context.
Here we have a situation in which an appeal is taken to the sheriff against the issue or refusal by the local authority of a qualification certificate. He has to be satisfied as to the state of the dwelling, first, at the time of the hearing. One can readily understand that. It is something on which evidence would be led and everyone would know where they stood. But why is it necessary to specify that he shall also satisfy himself as to the state of the dwelling at the time of issue or refusal of the


certificate? Surely this is a confusion of times.
Either the dwelling satisfies the statutory criteria at the time of the appeal or it does not. If it does not, then the appeal falls. What is the situation if it satisfies the criteria at the time of the appeal but the sheriff is satisfied that, at some earlier stage—namely, the time when the local authority issued or refused a certificate—it did not satisfy them? I do not understand the purpose here. Surely, if the dwelling has been put right in the meantime, the equity of the situation could be dealt with by way of expenses.
This seems a rather unnecessary confusion and introduces into the appeal procedure criteria which have to be tested as at two different times, one of which has superseded the other—namely, the condition of the dwelling at the time of the appeal and the condition of the dwelling at the time of the initial application.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: By the time the appeal is heard, the state of the dwelling might have changed from that at the time of the local authority's decision. This may be to the advantage or, indeed, to the disadvantage of the owner. For example, the local authority may have been justified in issuing a certificate because of the poor state of repair of the dwelling but, by the time the hearing is held before the sheriff on appeal, the repairs might have been carried out and the qualifying conditions of Clause 44(1) met. Again, it is possible that a defect in the dwelling may have developed which would justify the granting of an appeal by the tenant against the decision of the local authority to issue a certificate.
We can either seek to fit that sort of situation precisely into the Clause or leave the matter to the sheriff to decide on appeal, and we think that the latter is the better course rather than having the parties concerned starting the process all over again. We are importing a certain amount of common sense into this. If there is a change between the issue or refusal of a certificate and the appeal, then the matter should be decided by the sheriff because these matters will be led into the discussion of the case. This course will speed up the whole

matter rather than make the parties go back to the beginning because there has been a change and start all over again.

Mr. Wylie: I am not sure I follow all this. For example, at the time of application the statutory criteria were not satisfied and, therefore, the local authority was justified in refusing the application. The applicant then appeals and in the meantime puts right the property, so that the statutory criteria are satisfied. Is the sheriff in the situation as it exists then bound to grant an appeal? If so, what relevance has it, apart from the equitable question of expenses, whether the state of the property at an earlier stage in the proceedings has failed to satisfy the criteria?
I can well understand that, in such circumstances, the local authority may say, "The criteria are satisfied now, but we were justified in our earlier refusal. Therefore, you should refuse to allow his expenses." But I will be satisfied if I have an assurance that the governing factor is to be the state of the premises on the date of the hearing of the appeal, if that satisfies the statutory criteria.

11.0 p.m.

Dr. Dickson Mahon: The object is to get the repairs done. Whether we reach the stage of an appeal being successful does not matter to that. However, I will consider what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said.

Mr. Wylie: I will be grateful if the hon. Gentleman raises this matter with his noble Friend. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Wylie: I beg to move Amendment No. 30, in page 29, line 38, leave out from beginning to end of line 40.
I do not suggest that this is a crucial matter, but these are three lines which simply provide that the sheriff shall make no order for expenses unless it appears to him, having regard to the conduct of the parties and all their circumstances, that it will be equitable for him to do so.
I have always understood that the court always has regard to all the circumstances, including the conduct of the parties. I wonder whether these three lines are necessary.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: As I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman's case,


he is not saying that we ought not to have safeguards for a party who has lost an appeal, but who, in equity, ought not to have expenses awarded against him. He asked me whether this wording was proper. It is certainly precedented. It is in Section 13(h) of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions (Amendment) Act, 1933—action for recovery of rent—and in Section 33(6) of the Rent Act, 1965—recovery of possession of agricultural cottages. I understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not regard this as a vital Amendment and I hope that he will not pursue it.

Mr. Wylie: If it is so well precedented, it is almost impertinent to pursue it and ask why it should be here. However, one is at times tempted to question these things even though here are precedents. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 55

CONSENT OF TENANT

Mr. Wylie: I beg to move Amendment No. 32, in page 32, line 23, leave out from "circumstances" to end of line 29.
The Clause spells out many of the circumstances which the sheriff must take into account. Is it wise to spell them out in this kind of detail, especially immediately following the generality of regard having to be had to all the circumstances? The Minister has often told us that to do so emphasises aspects which do not merit emphasis. It leads to questions of interpretation. For example, the sheriff has to take into account the tenant's means in relation to the increase of rent that would result. What is meant by "means"? Would that take into account supplementary benefits to which he would be entitled if the work were done and the rent increased by that amount?
These are the kinds of questions of interpretation liable to arise when one seeks to spell out these things in such detail. Would it not be wiser to leave it in the broadest possible way to the discretion of the sheriff by stopping the Clause where we suggest?

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Following the argument so convincingly made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie), will the Minister say whether the disadvantage and other circumstances would be those arising as a result of the repairs or as a result of the works being done? Many of these cases will arise with small houses occupied by large families and some works might result in reducing the available accommodation.
We all know of circumstances when well-meaning factors have proposed alterations and improvements which, although excellent in themselves, would substantially reduce the accommodation. We have had examples of this with smoke control orders which have resulted in the provision of necessary facilities while reducing space.
For example, there might be a man and his wife and their six children living in a two-apartment house. If the proposal would have the result of reducing their available accommodation, would that be one of the circumstances which the sheriff could take into account? If so, these words will be valuable. I should appreciate the Minister's view on whether the words refer to the inconvenience in the course of the works being done, or that which may stem long term from the works being done.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I am grateful for the aid of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor). "Disadvantage" could be interpreted as referring to a reduction in size.
The hon. Member is probably speaking from experience of Glasgow. Perhaps he will take this a step further and accept that if we allowed automatic exemption for one tenant in a tenement block, that might make it virtually impossible for the owner to provide amenities for the whole house, or to make conversions involving amalgamations of houses.
In other words, a restriction of the kind used in the English Bill would be inappropriate to us in Scotland and would make it, if not impossible, very difficult for Clause 55 orders to be made in many tenements where landlords proposed to undertake improvements. I extend the hon. Member's example beyond the large family in small accommodation to families in tenemental accommodation where


one family could be affected by the rights of another.
New Clause 4 was added to the English Bill to introduce income limits to restrict the operation of the equivalent Clause. We do not think that in the Scottish context, it should be made. Our sheriffs are well used to exercising discretion on matters to be taken into account and are well able to make a judgment between conflicting interests, between landlords and tenants, but the Amendment removes any guidance to sheriffs. The guidance is varied.
The first point is that which the hon. Member for Cathcart reported, and which supports me—I hope that this does not embarrass him. That is of accommodation being converted into a bathroom—a good example—which the hon. Member gave, or the example I gave, the effect on a next-door tenant. There is the question of temporary accommodation if works cannot be done while the tenant is in the house, even if the house is to be improved or converted.
The last item, about which we are not now arguing is that touched on by the English new Clause—Ability to pay the rent. There is precedent for similar directions in other Acts and it is right to guide the sheriff on these three points. They are peculiarly Scottish and there is no need to qualify it as the English new Clause 4 has done. It is important not to upset Clause 55. We expect a great deal of it.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Can the Minister answer the point about the first part of this:
… disadvantage to the tenant which might be expected to result from the works"?
Does "works" refer to the position after they have been completed or to when they are being done?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. Interjections must be brief.

Mr. Wylie: The matters to which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) has drawn attention underline the danger of trying to spell out in detail too many criteria. As the Minister said, the sheriffs in Scotland know well how to operate this type of provision and it would have been much better to have

left this as a simple direction to the sheriff that he should have regard to all the circumstances, instead of filling it up with language practically every line of which is open to question and may be open to judicial interpretation. I will not press this kind of point at this hour, but precedent or no precedent, we should be careful.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 7

ENACTMENTS REPEALED

Amendment made: No. 33, in page 62, line 38, at end insert:


1968 c. 42.
The Prices and Incomes Act 1968.
Section 12.

—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

Title

Amendment made: No. 34, in line 17, after 'tenancy;', insert:
'to provide for the increase of rents of houses belonging to certain authorities without notice of removal'.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

11.15 p.m.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
May I congratulate my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite, including those from the Liberal Party, who have participated in the excellent progress of this Bill. It has passed through the Scottish Standing Committee and established a record for speed of transition. May I also congratulate those who have taken part on the very constructive way in which they have argued the provisions of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) described the Bill as the most important Scottish Bill this Session. I agree. In my opinion, it is one of the most important housing Bills for many years.
The Bill contains the first major revision of the slum clearance law for more than 30 years, and for the first time introduces in Scotland a positive minimum standard for houses. By integrating the statutory codes for slum clearance and improvement and by giving a greater incentive for improvement the Bill opens


the door for fruitful co-operation between local authorities and private owners. In introducing the Bill my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said:
Legislation alone can never cure the problem of bad housing in Scotland."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 18th March, 1969; c. 7.]
The Bill provides the framework, but the effective action depends on the help and co-operation of local authorities, owner-occupiers, landlords, tenants, builders and particularly the leadership of local councillors. They have done a magnificent job so far in extending the output of new houses in Scotland and I hope that they will with equal energy get on with the task of stepping up the rate of clearance to a level which will enable Scotland to get rid of its plague of slums within a short period of years.

11.18 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I wish to thank the Minister of State for the tributes he paid to my hon. Friends for the examination of the Bill. Hon. Members on both sides have done their best in the short time available to improve the Bill. On the question of timing, I must make it clear that it has seemed to us that the Government have got their legislaion mixed up, in as much as this Bill was in the queue after the Planning Bill and the Education Bill. This meant that we have had an unusually short period of time to take it through its stages here
before it goes to another place.
Having said that, the Minister will agree that hon. Members on both sides have co-operated fully in a difficult programme so that we could examine the particular points and try to make changes in the Bill to improve it. I am glad to say that the Minister has accepted a number of our suggestions made in Committee and later. We are sorry that he has not been able to accept more.
The Bill seeks to produce a new system for the improvement of older houses and we hope that it will prove to be an effective system. It is now left to those who have to try to make the Bill work—and the Minister has mentioned some of them—to operate this system. We hope that it will be more effective than previous systems and we on our side will do all we can to ensure that the stock of houses that we have in Scotland is fully used and that those with plenty of life in

them, which need improvement and repair, are saved and used fully to help provide accommodation, along with the new houses being built.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: There is a rule of thumb that I have for Government legislation, which is that the best thing we can do with whatever they put forward is to throw it away; on the whole, we would be much better off without it.
This is one of those very rare exceptions, I can scarcely think of any other, where, on balance, we have to give a Third Reading to a Bill which will serve certain useful purposes. That is why we have been able to treat the Bill in a receptive and agreeable fashion. On reflection, it is a pity that this receptive fashion should have been to some extent disturbed by the Minister of State, at certain points, when he made attacks on some Scottish local authorities and their housing records, attacks which were not justified by the facts—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to what is in the Bill and not discuss other matters outside it.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I would not dream of doing any such thing, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the attacks made by the Minister of State were within the terms of the Bill on various of the Clauses that we discussed earlier. However, I will not try your patience by pursuing that further.
While, together with my hon. Friends, I welcome the Bill in general, it does not go nearly far enough. In particular, the terms of Part IV are totally inadequate to deal with a grave injustice which has persisted for many years. To my mind, it is intolerable that people like landlords in my constituency, who have small individual properties, in an excellent state of repair, with all modern conveniences, are receiving such low rents. I had a case last week of a landlord who was receiving, for a fully modernised property with three rooms, kitchen and bathroom—the lot—a rent of £16 10s. a year. It is intolerable that these people should be invited to wait for three or, perhaps even four more years


before they can obtain the benefits of upgrading under Part IV of the Bill.
Therefore, it is for that reason above all that I greet the Bill with very modified rapture. It is justice very long deferred into the future. I suppose, however, that to be able to greet a Bill from the present Government with any form of rapture at all is a welcome change.

11.22 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: I would not like the Third Reading of the Bill to pass without my being able to say that this is one of the few Bills on which I have actually enjoyed serving in the Committee stage. I think it is a good Bill and one which is for the improvement of the housing situation in Scotland.
If we accept, as, I hope, we are all moving, however slowly, towards accepting, that housing is a basic human right, we can say that this modest Bill goes one step further in the direction of creating that human right as a reality in Scotland. Of course, standards are not high enough. What one person may regard as a minimum status of tolerance might not be acceptable to most of us even in this House as tolerable living conditions. We will want to see the standards improved over the years.
The Bill has thrown up important discussion. One conviction which it has underlined, certainly in my mind, is that we shall never cure the position of Scotland's older houses until we rid ourselves of the legacy of the dilemma of private landlordism in Scotland. We are in the impossible situation that if a landlord is to get a fair return on his capital, the tenant has to pay an extortionately high price for the value of the property which he inhabits.
If, on the other hand, the tenant is to pay a reasonable rent for the property which he inhabits, the private landlord is often in a situation in which he will not be able to improve the property or keep it up. Therefore, I hope that over the years we will see encouragement to home ownership, co-operative housing and municipal housing and the phasing out as rapidly as possible of the sector of private tenancies which we have known in Scotland.
I believe that the people of Scotland are well aware of the deficiencies of our

housing situation compared with that south of the Border. I say that because the House might be interested to learn that the public response to the Shelter organisation in Scotland since—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must draw the hon. Member's attention to the fact that we can discuss only what is in the Bill—in other words, how the Bill will operate. We cannot discuss things that we would like to see in the Bill or suggest what should be taken out of it.

Mr. Steel: What I am about to mention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is very relevant to how the Bill will operate, because one thing with which I am closely concerned is the encouragement of housing associations, which will make use of the provisions in the Bill for increased rents.
What I wanted to tell the House was that one of the main sources of revenue of housing associations in Scotland will be money raised by Shelter. Since this organisation set up its own office in Scotland in the autumn it set out very carefully a financial target for its first year of operation, bearing in mind its experience in England, and it has had the very pleasant surprise of having been able to raise within Scotland in four months the amount of money which it had set as its target—in the first year of operation. This, I believe, is testimony to the awareness of the public in Scotland to the very cruel housing situation which exists in some parts of the country.
I should like to put a question to the Minister following the very encouraging reports in the Press of the development of clamp-on units in the older housing, and the fact that the Scottish Special Housing Association said that it had spent only £100,000 of the £1 million allowed by the Government for the improvement of older properties. If we are here passing a Bill to encourage more improvement of older properties I wonder what role the S.S.H.A. has to play in this. The reason given for this very small expenditure was that it was permitted to spend only £2,500 on doing each conversion.
I would suggest that most housing associations operating in this field used grants available under the old legislation and were able to make conversions usually at a cost of about £1,600 and not at the £2,500 level. I wonder, first, whether the S.S.H.A. ought to be in this


field at all; but, if it is in the field, I wonder if it should have such exacting standards. I do not believe that the Bill deals with matters such as flush-fitted doors and matters of that kind, and whether we can, in this legislation, bring houses up to modem council or S.S.H.A. building. This should be borne in mind when this money is available for the improvement of older property. The association ought to take this into account when it has still £900,000 left to it for this purpose.
Finally, I very much hope that we shall see more housing associations in Scotland. I do not mean housing associations of the commercial kind. I mean voluntary bodies of the kind which exist only in the major cities and, occasionally, in towns like Greenock, where, perhaps, they have been actively encouraged. It is true that most of the small burghs in Scotland which do have the problem of older houses do not have any voluntary associations in their midst to help deal with this problem. This is something which ought to be encouraged, and the passage of the Bill, I hope, will make that easier.
I hope that the Bill will have a speedy passage in another place, as the Minister expressed in Committee the possibility that it might be in operation by the end of the Summer Recess. I hope that we do not delay it any longer. I wish it a speedy passage and all success.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND (LARNE HARBOUR)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

11. 28 p.m.

Mr. Henry Clark: The north-east coast of Ireland, where my constituency is situated, faces Scotland across the narrowest part of the Irish Sea. It is an unfortunate fact of geography that in the whole 100-mile stretch of this coast, from Belfast to Londonderry, there is only one natural harbour, only one harbour which gives any facility for deep-water berths for boats much larger than from 10 to 15 tons.
There are a couple of artificial harbours which give only crowded space for small boats. The one natural harbour, which is the subject of which I wish to speak, is Lough Larne. Lough Larne and, more particularly, Curran Point, the sickle shaped spit which half closes the mouth of the Lough, provides very valuable and historic anchorage. As this is the only natural harbour in 100 miles of coast. Curran Point, at Lough Larne, has for generations been of great strategic and commercial importance.
At no time have Lough Larne and the Curran been more important than in the past 25 years. Ever since William Cheyne founded Larne Harbour, more than 100 years ago, the harbour company has been a go-ahead and enterprising firm, and the country owes a great deal to it. Under its present board, and particularly the management of the late Davy Logan, the harbour has gone from strength to strength. In 1949, it became the base for Colonel Bustard's early experiments in roll-on roll-off ferries and container services. As the Minister knows, that enterprise of Colonel Bustard's has grown into a large part of the Transport Holding Company.
Larne Harbour has grown during those 25 years, since the war, at a quite phenomenal rate. In 1947, the harbour dealt with barely 1 per cent. of the traffic to and from Northern Ireland. Today, it deals with about 37 per cent. Larne has become the second largest harbour in Northern Ireland and, from dealing with £2½ million of goods, today it deals with about £370 million worth. It is a great success story, and everyone in County Antrim is proud of it.
The length of deep-water berths and quays has been increased on a number of occasions, and several times permission has been granted by the Board of Trade for navigable water to be reclaimed so that the storage areas and parking bays can be provided which are so essential to the handling of containers; and Larne probably knows more about handling containers than any other port in the world.
Unfortunately, members of the Larne Harbour Company are not the only people to have an interest in the Curran Point. When it was heard that the Board of Trade was to grant permission yet again for Larne Harbour


Board to reclaim a large area of 6½ acres of sea, it was clear to anyone who knew the area or who looked at a map of the area that the whole nature of Curran Point was about to be changed.
The other interested parties on the Curran must be spelt out carefully. For generations, the Curran Point has been a favourite area for retired sea captains to build their houses, and Larne has produced a whole race of famous seamen. Recently, I sent the Board of Trade a petition signed by 170 residents of the area, and there can be no doubt that the extension of Larne Harbour which turns an attractive small bay into an extraordinarily ugly parking space for containers is reducing considerably the value of those private houses. Under the law, they can receive no compensation.
At the tip of Curran Point, the Northern Ireland Electricity Board has a site of six or seven acres. On it, one of the first generating stations in Northern Ireland was built. Today, though the generating station has gone, the electricity board has a storage area and a switching and transforming station there.
In addition to the harbour board, the residents and the electricity board, there are two sailing clubs. The Larne Rowing and Sailing Club is based on land which is owned by the harbour and leased on a year-to-year basis. Then there is the East Antrim Boat Club, which purchased a small disused shipyard in 1949 that the harbour could well have bought in 1949 had it wanted it.
The sailing clubs present another success story. They have large memberships, particularly large cadet memberships. They have very successful fleets of sailing dinghies, and increasing numbers of cruising boats and ocean racers. They provide on Curran Point the largest single slipway available to yachts in Northern Ireland, and they have facilities for hundreds and, in future, perhaps thousands of people to take part in water sports. Anyone who knows the County Antrim coast, and has sailed up and down it as often as I have, knows that nowhere else on the coast could one place the facilities of Curran Point and Larne without huge expense.
Just as there are several parties concerned with Curran Point and Larne, so

there are several planning authorities. Larne Harbour Company itself is the planning authority for the dock and quay area. Larne Borough Council is responsible for the area outside the quays and docks. The Ministry of Development of Northern Ireland is responsible for the Belfast area plan, in which Larne is included, and it is responsible equally for the revision of that plan and for the special area plan for East Antrim, on which consultants have been working for the last few months. For good measure, the Crown Commissioners own the foreshore, and the Board of Trade, as we have discovered, is responsible for the navigation.
Over a year ago I raised with the Board of Trade the question of the navigation and the possibility of further filling in and reclamation of Larne Harbour. Unfortunately, the Board of Trade did not seem to be able to find the reference of its correspondence with the Larne Harbour Company and the yacht clubs in Larne, and the matter went no further. Just what happened to the letters in the Board of Trade, I do not know, but it is getting a reputation for delay and prevarication.
Not having heard from the Board of Trade, I assumed that no action was being taken. I was surprised when, early in April, I received a letter from the East Antrim Boat Club enclosing a copy of a letter from the marine division of the Board of Trade saying that permission had been granted to the Larne Harbour Company to fill in stage one, which is 6½ acres. Since I had first taken up the question there had been some amendment. The Royal Sailing Association and the Northern Ireland Council for Youth and Physical Recreation had made representations, and slight adjustments had been made in the plans for filling in.
When I wrote to the Board of Trade, in April this year it again seemed to take an inordinate length of time to discover what was happening. It took repeated telephone calls to the Minister's private secretary, and only just before the Whitsun Recess, when filling in had been going on for six weeks, I received a letter from the Minister in which he maintained that the Board of Trade's responsibility was purely for navigation and that the permission granted did not


mean permission for the harbour board to continue to fill in.
It is possible that the Board of Trade observed the letter of the law when it granted permission to the Larne Harbour Company. But what discussions did the Board of Trade have with any of the planning authorities? What discussions did it have with the householders, who were eventually forced to send a petition through me? What discussions did it have with the other interested parties, such as the Northern Ireland Electricity Board, which is interested in Curran Point?
There is no doubt that the Board of Trade's decision to allow the filling in of 6½ acres of sea pre-empts any other planning decisions, and certainly if stage three and stage four, as shown in the charts, are proceeded with there will be no hope of preserving the amenity value of Curran Point.
I ask the Minister to give an assurance that the filling in of stage one will be brought to an end very shortly. I also ask for an assurance that he will not give permission for Larne Harbour Company to proceed with any further stage of reclamation in Lough Larne until the whole question has been gone into very carefully with the appropriate planning authorities, and better still, until the plan provides both for the Larne Harbour Company and the amenities of the householders now on Curran Point.
I need hardly remind the Minister that in a similar plan to extend the Liverpool docks and harbours a private Act of Parliament was necessary, and the householders nearby were assured that their houses would be bought, if necessary at pre-development rates.
Larne Harbour must have priority—it is a vital development for Northern Ireland—but must not have absolute priority. The interests of others must be taken into consideration. The problem can be solved. I believe that it can be if it is gone into carefully. The land now held by the Northern Ireland Electricity Board could be taken over. The electricity board is under-utilising a very valuable site, and its buildings are an eyesore. On Curran Point splendid amenities for water sports can be provided with good planning and we can at the same time have a bigger Larne Harbour than before.
I believe that the Board of Trade, while observing the letter of the law, has been negligent in this case in not considering the best interests of all the people concerned. The mere fact that the constitution of Northern Ireland gives jurisdiction only to the water edge leaves a loophole which the Board of Trade, I think without proper care, has taken and has prejudiced very valuable amenity rights which cannot be replaced elsewhere on the County Antrim coast.

11.40 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. William Rodgers): I am gateful to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. Henry Clark) for raising this question, as it gives me an opportunity to tell him and the House just what are the Board of Trade's responsibilities—and they are limited—in connection with works in tidal waters.
I am sorry if the hon. Member feels that his concern with the matter has not been properly and rapidly dealt with. I see that he wrote a letter to the Board which was received on 1st May, to which the Board replied on 21st May. I know that he may feel that the delay was longer than necessary, but I hope that he will understand that, because of its limited responsibilities, inquiries were necessary which involved some researches which I would think reasonably justify a lapse of this time. Certainly I believe so on the basis of the information available to me, whereas if the hon. Member feels there was any discourtesy, this was not intended. As far as I can judge, there was no unreasonable delay in dealing with his problem.
The Marine Department of the Board of Trade is responsible for the safety of navigation and also for protecting the public right of navigation in tidal waters. I think that we should get this clear. As a result of these responsibilities, it is necessary for the consent of the Board to be obtained to the construction of works and to the deposit of materials below the high-water mark of ordinary spring tides, unless statutory powers are obtained from Parliament. This requirement goes back at least to the early part of the last century.
In considering applications, our statutory concern is with obstruction or danger to navigation, and only with these matters, not with matters of planning or general


amenity, however important they may be—and I should not dispute that they are important in this case, as in others.
I should like to stress this now as there appears to have been some confusion about the position reflected in the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I appreciate his concern and I am anxious to indicate the necessary limit of it from the Board's point of view.
The Board of Trade is concerned only with the interests of navigation and our consent does no more than give the applicant the "all clear" on the navigational aspect of his application. It does not give him any powers to carry out the works, nor does it override the need to obtain planning permission where this is required.

Mr. Henry Clark: Surely the Minister is speaking as if this was Great Britain, not Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the jurisdiction of Northern Ireland reaches only to the low-tide mark, where the Board's powers begin. There can be no application of planning by the Northern Ireland Government in the area. Therefore, the Minister is the only authority, and, by granting permission, he is taking the powers of a planning authority.

Mr. Rodgers: With respect, the hon. Member has not quite got it right. I hope that I will partly answer his question in what I have to say. I am trying to indicate where our area of responsibility begins and ends. In the proper fulfilment of our obligations and responsibilities we are bound to fall short of the area with which the hon. Gentleman said that he was principally concerned.
At one stage the hon. Member referred to a total plan for the area. I am trying to make clear that we are not responsible, and cannot be under our powers, for a total plan for the area. Although the hon. Member might wish us to go wider than the letter of the law, given the position, we must carry out our responsibilities as fairly as we can. We cannot depart from what is statutorily given to us to infringe upon the responsibility of others.
As the hon. Gentleman has implied, in Great Britain planning matters are, of course, the responsibility of the Minister of Housing and Local Government. But

in Northern Ireland they are the responsibility of the Minister of Development. I understand that if anyone wishes to appeal against a planning decision made in Northern Ireland by a borough or county council they can appeal to the Minister of Development. In any case, planning is the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Parliament and not of Ministers in Westminster. Whatever the hon. Member or I might say, this constitutional relationship cannot be changed.
To return to the functions of the Board of Trade, in considering applications for consent to works in tidal waters we consult all those whom we think have an interest from a navigation point of view, and in many cases we require proposals to be advertised. If we consider that we require more information, we can hold a local inquiry. The hon. Member said that an attractive small bay was to be turned into an extraordinarily ugly parking place for containers. This is not essentially a matter for the Board of Trade, because our responsibility is limited to the navigational aspects.
May I turn now to the specific case which the hon. Member has raised tonight relating to an application from Larne Harbour Ltd. to reclaim part of Lame Harbour. This application represents in fact a further stage in a process of reclamation of the harbour which has been going on since 1961 in order to expand the facilities for handling traffic at Lame. As the hon. Member says, developments in recent years have been marked by progress and growth in this respect.
Larne Harbour Ltd. is not a statutory harbour authority, but it handles more traffic and goods than any other harbour authority in Northern Ireland, except Belfast. The British Railways Ferry Service operates four services a day and the harbour authority handles a considerable and growing amount of container traffic, which perhaps creates the problem as the hon. Member now sees it. The area which the company now wishes to infill will be used to provide a hard standing and parking area for container service vehicles using the port and will provide an additional quay along the seaward side of the area.
We required the proposals to be advertised, and objections were received. I am sorry if the hon. Member was not


aware of this fact. These led to revisions of the proposals which were again, in their revised form, advertised—I am now talking about a period extending over three or four years—following a meeting between representatives of the Board of Trade, the Royal Yachting Association, and the applicants. The area which is now proposed to be reclaimed has been slightly reduced—I think the hon. Member himself said there had been modifications—and under the new arrangements the East Antrim Boat Club and the Larne Rowing and Sailing Clubs—the two clubs with which the hon. Member was concerned—will continue to have access to their slipways.
To make an early start on the reclamation and provide some additional space for the container traffic, Larne Harbour Authority has now split its proposals into the three stages which I think the hon. Member has in mind and we have been able to give consent to Stage I, as we are satisfied that this does not interfere unreasonably with navigation. I must again stress that this consent does not of itself give the company power to reclaim the area concerned, but merely states that, if I may quote the somewhat antique wording which is used on these occasions—
so far as the interests of navigation are concerned and without prejudice to the estate and interest of Her Majesty the Queen, or other the Owner or Owners in the soil of the tidal lands to be interfered with, hereby consent to the reclamation by Larne Harbour Authority of 6·7 acres of foreshore below high water mark of ordinary spring tides at Lame in connection with Stage I of the proposed extension of Larne Harbour as shown by the plan annexed hereto".
It will be noted that the phrase—
so far as the interests of navigation are concerned"—
is the preliminary to the consent we have given. This is the limit of our responsibility.
Again speaking within our own responsibilities, I can say that Larne Harbour Authority has been very co-operative over the navigation needs of the Lame Rowing and Sailing Clubs—at least, I have been told so—and has agreed that they may have the use of the extreme southern end of the proposed quay for the accommodation of visiting yachts and for other purposes.
Discussions are continuing concerning the loss of mooring space and proposals for alternative mooring areas. Strictly speaking, I understand that the provision of moorings for a vessel should not be regarded as part of the public right of navigation. The consent of the owner or lessee of the foreshore or bed of the sea is required before anyone can lay either a permanent or a temporary mooring, so that we do not need to take objections relating to moorings into account when considering applications. Nevertheless, the Board's practice is to attempt to resolve as far as possible any difficulties relating to mooring by negotiation with the parties concerned.
It has been suggested—I think that the hon. Member implied this—that the proposals of Larne Harbour Authority will lead to the disappearance of the only safe all-weather anchorage for yachts between Carrick Fergus, 20 miles south-west of Larne, and Port Rush, 60 miles to the north. I do not think that this is correct. There are, I gather—although I would defer to the hon. Gentleman and his experience—places within Lough Larne, in particular to the south-west of Curran Point, where a safe anchorage can be found.
I hope that I have been able to explain to the hon. Member the basis on which the Board of Trade considers applications relating to works in tidal waters, and to satisfy him that in this particular case we have given full and fair consideration to all the navigational aspects of the matter, those being, as I have said, the only aspects of concern to the Board of Trade.

Mr. Henry Clark: Could the Minister tell me what discussions he has had with the Minister of Development in Northern Ireland, who is responsible particularly for the Belfast area plan and the East Antrim special plan, and what discussions he has had with Larne Borough Council? If he has had no discussions, would he not agree that he should do so, as the Larne Borough Council's responsibility and the responsibility of the Minister of Development are directly adjacent to this in-filling?

Mr. Rodgers: I personally have had no discussion with the Minister of Development, but, as I have said, discussions about this development have extended over a period of three years. We


have always advertised the proposals, and after the first occasion they were modified. There has been very full opportunity for all those involved to make their views known.
But I must say again, although it is not for me to disagree with the hon. Member's argument, that many planning authorities are involved. All I can say is that our concern is for the navigational aspects. As far as that is concerned, we have gone through all the procedures, and I am not aware that there has been any objection raised with us by the Minister of Development in Northern Ireland. If this is not the case, I will let the hon. Member know.
As I say, our responsibility has been limited. I must ask the hon. Member not to expect me to get involved in the total plan which he says may be required in the area—I am not discounting it, but it is not my province—nor ask me to abandon the letter of the law for a more liberal interpretation of responsibilities which would impinge upon the proper responsibility of the Parliament of

Northern Ireland and would not be, for that reason, ultimately acceptable by this House.
The hon. Member has performed a useful function in raising this matter, from everybody's point of view. I can certainly assure him that our consent to stage I of the scheme is entirely without prejudice to our consideration of the later stages of the schemes—in other words, stages II and III. In examining these suggestions, we shall, of course, take into account what he has said tonight.
As to the planning matters that he has raised, I hope that the hon. Member will forgive me if I say that as they are outside my province, they are matters which he may wish to discuss with the Minister of Development of the Northern Ireland Government because it would be improper for me to trespass on to his ground, just as I am sure he would not wish to limit our own rôle, restricted though it may be, for entirely navigational matters.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Twelve o'clock.